IN  THE 


SUPREME  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS, 


NORTHERN    QRAND    DIVISION. 


MARCH  TERM,  A.  ID.  1887. 


AUGUST    SPIES   ET  AL., 


PLAINTIFFS, 


VS. 


THE  PEOPLE  OE  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 

DEFENDANT. 


Error  to  the 

Criminal  Court  of 
Cook  Connty. 


ABSTRACT  OF  RKCORD. 


W.  P.  BLACK  and 

SALOMON   &  ZEISLER, 

ATTOBNEYS  FOK  PLAINTIFFS  IN  EKIIOII. 

LEONARD  S  \VBTT, 

Or  COUNSEL. 


Vol.  I. 


CONTAINING  ABSTRACT  OF     Voi.s.  1,  O,  A  TO  11,  INCL.,  AND  VOL.  OF  EXHIBITS. 


CHICAGO 


SOCIETY 


CHICAGO: 

BARNARD  &  GUNTHORP,  LAW  PRINTERS,  44  &  40  LAS.M.LE  STREET. 

1887. 


DEACCESS10NED  BY 

CHICAGO  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY 

PRINTED  COLLECTIONS 


CHICAGO 

HISTORICAL 

SOCIETY 


ABSTRACT  OF  RECORD. 


VOL.  1. 

1  Impaneling   of   grand  jury  on    May    17,    1886,  after  excuses    being 

2  heard  from  those  summoned  and  there  being  only  seventeen  persons  left 

3  upon  the  panel,  by  special  venire  six  more  persons  were  summoned  and 
all  sworn. 

4  June  4th:     Presentment  by  grand  jury  of  indictment. 

5-20  The  indictment,  containing  sixty-nine  counts,  charges  the  eight  defend- 
ants now  before  the  court,  together  with  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  and  Will- 
iam Seliger,  with  jointly  killing  Matthias  <J.  Degan  on  May  4,  1886,  in 
the  county  of  Cook  and  State  of  Illinois,  first  with  a  bomb,  second  with 
a  revolver,  third  with  an  unknown  weapon;  then  with  having  been 
present  and  aiding,  and  then,  without  being  present,  having  aided  and 
advised  an  unknown  person  in  the  killing  of  Degan,  first  with  a  bomb, 
second  with  a  revolver,  third  with  an  unknown  instrument;  then  seriatim 
each  of  the  defendants  is  charged  in  a  series  of  counts  with  killing 
Degan,  first  with  a  revolver,  second  with  a  bomb,  third  with  an  unknown 
weapon,  the  other  nine  defendants  being  present,  aiding,  etc.,  and  in 
another  series  with  not  being  present,  but  having  aided,  advised,  etc., 
the  commission  of  the  crime. 

14  The  thirty-eighth  count  charges  that  one  Rudolph  Schnaubelt,  on 

May  4,  1886,  in  Cook  county,  State  of  Illinois,  unlawfully,  wilfully, 
feloniously,  and  of  his  malice  aforethought,  made  an  assault  upon  the 
body  of  Matthias  J.  Degan  with  a  certain  deadly  and  destructive  instru- 
ment, charged  with  divers  dangerous  and  explosive  substances,  wilfully, 
etc.,  ignited  and  cast  the  same  upon  the  ground  near  to  the  said  Matthias 
J.  Degan,  then  and  there  causing  the  said  instrument  to  explode,  and 
fragments  thereof  to  strike,  lacerate,  penetrate  and  wound  the  body  and 
limbs  of  said  M.  J.  Degan,  giving  him  divers  mortal  wounds,  etc.,  of 
which  he  languished,  and  on  said  May  4th  died  in  Cook  county,  State 
of  Illinois,  and  that  the  nine  other  defendants,  feloniously,  unlawfully, 
etc.,  did  stand  by  and  aid,  abet  and  assist  said  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  in 
the  perpetration  of  the  crime  aforesaid. 

16  The  forty-eighth  count  charges  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  identically  as  in 

the  thirty-eighth  count,  alleging  that  the  other  nine  defendants  feloniously, 
etc.,  not  being  present,  aiding,  abetting  and  assisting,  had  advised, 


VOL.  1. 

encouraged,  aided  and  abetted  the  said  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  in  the  per- 
petration of  the  crime  aforesaid. 

21,  22       Endorsement  of  indictment. 

23,24  June  5th:  Arraignment  of  August  Spies,  Michael  Schwab,  Samuel 
Fielden,  Adolph  Fischer,  George  Engel,  Louis  Lingg  and  Oscar  W. 
Neebe  and  plea  of  not  guilty  entered  as  to  each  and  every  one  of  them. 

25-27  June  loth:  Defendants  take  change  of  venue  from  Judge  John  G. 
Rogers. 

28,  29  June  loth:  Cause  set  for  trial  by  Judge  Joseph  E.  Gary  for  June  21, 
1886. 

30,31  June  2ist:  Defendants  move  for  leave  to  withdraw  plea  of  not  guilty, 
which  is  overruled  by  the  court.  Motion  by  August  Spies,  Michael 
Schwab,  Samuel  Fielden  and  Oscar  W.  Neebe  for  separate  trial  from 

31  other  defendants;  overruled. 

32  Defendant  Albert  R.  Parsons  arraigned,  pleads  not  guilty. 
33-40       Orders  for  special  venires  and  continuances  from  day  to  day. 

41  June  25th:    J.  H.  Cole,  S.  G.  Randall,  T.  E.  Denker  and  C.  B.  Todd 

sworn  to  try  the  cause. 

42-47       Orders  for  special  venires  and  adjournments  from  day  to  day. 
48  June  29th:     Henry  L.  Ryce  appointed  a  special  bailiff  to  serve  special 

venires. 

49-63       Continuances. 
64  July  8th:     Frank  S.  Osborne,  Charles  H.  Ludwig,   A.  Hamilton  and 

J.  H.  Brayton  sworn  to  try  the  cause. 
65-74       Continuances. 

75  John  B.  Greiner,  G.  W.  Adams,  A.  H.  Reed  and  H.  T.  Sanford  sworn 
to  try  the  cause. 

76  Jury  ordered  to  be  kept  together  in  charge  of  an  officer. 
77-130     Continuances. 

131  August  i9th:  After  all  the  evidence  and  arguments  and  instructions 

of  the  court  are  heard  by  the  jury,  the  latter  retire  to  consider  their 
verdict. 

132,133  August  2Oth:  Verdict  returned  as  follows:  We,  the  jury,  find  the 
defendants,  August  Spies,  Michael  Schwab,  Samuel  Fielden,  Albert  R. 
Parsons,  Adolph  Fischer,  George  Engel  and  Louis  Lingg  guilty  of 
murder  in  manner  and  form  as  charged  in  the  indictment  and  fix  the 

» 

penalty  at  death.  We  find  the  defendant  Oscar  W.  Neebe  guilty  of 
murder  in  manner  and  form  as  charged  in  the  indictment,  and  fix  the 
penalty  at  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  fifteen  years. 


(3) 

VOL.  1. 

134  Motion  for  new  trial  by  defendants  continued  until  next  term  of  court. 

137-141    October    ist  to  October  7th:     Arguments   of   counsel   on    motion   for 

new  trial. 
142  October  7th:     Motion  for  new  trial  overruled  and  exception.     Motion 

in  arrest  of  judgment  by  defendants,  overruled  and  exception. 
143-145   October  7th  to  October  pth:     Defendants   say    why   sentence   should 

not  be  pronounced  against  them  on  verdict. 

146  October  pth:     Judgment  against  defendant  August  Spies,  that   he  be 
confined  in  the  Cook  county  jail  until   December  3,   1886,   and  on   that 
day  between  10  A.  M.  and  2  p.  M.,  be  hanged  by  the  neck  until  he   is 
dead. 

147  Same  judgment  against  Michael  Schwab. 

148  Same  judgment  against  Samuel  Fielden. 

149  Same  judgment  against  Albert  R.  Parsons. 

150  Same  judgment  against  Adolph  Fischer. 

151  Same  judgment  against  George  Engel. 
153           Same  judgment  against  Louis  Lingg. 

154-155  Judgment  against  Oscar  W.  Neebe,  that  he  be  taken  by  the  sheriff  to 
the  penitentiary  of  this  state,  atjoliet,  and  delivered  to  its  keeper,  and 
that  he  be  confined  there  for  fifteen  years  at  hard  labor. 

156  October  28th.     On  motion  of  defendants,  thirty-five  days  are  granted 
within  which  to  file  bill  of  exceptions. 

157  November  i3th.    Bill  of  exceptions  filed. 

159  Grounds  of  defendants'  motion  for  leave  to  withdraw  their  plea  of  not 
guilty,  and  motion  to  quash  the  indictment: 

first.     There  is  a  misjoinder  of  counts  in  indictment. 

Second.     There  is  a  multiplicity  of  counts  in  indictment. 

Third.     The  indictment  is  uncertain  and  insufficient. 

Fourth.  During  the  consideration  of  this  case  by  the  grand  jury, 
Julius  Grinnell,  state's  attorney,  and  Edward  Furthman,  pretending  to 
be  in  the  employ  of  the  state's  attorney,  were  present  in  the  grand  jury 
room  and  put  questions  to,  and  examined  witnesses  then  under  exami- 
nation by  said  grand  jury. 

Fifth.  Grand  jury  were  improperly  drawn  and  impaneled,  in  that 
certain  of  said  jurors,  to  wit:  John  N.  Hills,  John  N.  Clark,  Edward 
S.  Dreyer,  John  C.  Neemes,  W.J.  Quan  and  F.  W.  Hall  were  not 
drawn  from  the  body  of  the  county  nor  were  they  bystanders,  but  the 
sheriff  caused  said  persons  to  be  improperly  selected,  and  particularly 

1 60  one  E,  S.  Dreyer,  who  was   at  the  time  a  personal   enemy  of  August 


(4) 

VOL.  1. 

Spies,  and  in  that  at  the  time  of  the  impaneling  of  said  grand  jury  in 
the  court  room,  none  of  these  defendants  were  present  in  the  court  room 
and  were  prevented  from  being  present  by  reason  of  their  being  confined 
in  the  county  jail,  except  Oscar  Neebe,  who  at  the  time,  however,  was 
not  held  to  answer  for  any  crime. 

Sixth.  The  Hon.  John  G.  Rogers  improperly  and  erroneously 
charged  the  grand  jury. 

Signed  and  sworn  to  by  August  Spies,  Michael  Schwab,  Samuel 
Fielden,  Adolph  Fischer,  Louis  Lingg,  George  Engel  and  Oscar  Neebe. 

161  Affidavit  of  Ernst  Legner  shows  that  affiant,  whose  name  is  endorsed 
on  the  back  of  indictment  in  this  case,  testified   before  grand  jury  on  or 
about  May  20,  1886,  that  while  so  in  the  grand  jury  room  states's  attor- 
ney Julius  S.  Grinnell  and  one  Furthman,  an   assistant  of  his,  were  pres- 
ent, but  not  as  witnesses  and  not  testifying  then 'and  there,  but  both  said 
Grinnell  and  Furthman  put  questions  to  affiant  and  principally  conducted 
his  examination;  that  when  affiant  answered  that  he  was  not  a  socialist, 
said    Grinnell  said  in  substance:     "If  you  ain't  a  socialist,  you  are  not 
far  from   it."     When  affiant  left  grand  jury  room,   said  Grinnell    and 
Furthman  remained  there. 

162  (Said  motions  were  overruled;  defendants  severally  and  respectively 

excepted.) 

163  Motion  by  defendants,  August  Spies,  Samuel  Fielden,  Michael  Schwab 
and  Oscar  W.  Neebe,  to  be  jointly  granted  a  separate  trial  from  all  other 
defendants  with  them  indicted,  upon  following  grounds: 

1.  Testimony   against  them  will  be  materially  different    from    that 
against  the  other  defendants  with  them  jointly  indicted. 

2.  Testimony  which  may  be  competent   as   against  other  defendants 
will  not  be  competent  as  against  them,  and  will  prejudice  them. 

3.  Certain  evidence  of  an  alleged  conspiracy  will  be  introduced  on  the 
trial  with  which  these  defendants  are   in   no   way   connected,  and   which 
will  prejudice  them. 

4.  Their  defense   will  be   greatly  imperiled   by  reason  of  such  evi- 
dence, incompetent   as  to  them,  in   the   course  of  a  lengthy  and  tedious 
trial. 

5.  They  are  advised   that   illegitimate  evidence  will   be  submitted  to 
the  jury,  especially  in  regard   to   an  alleged  conspiracy,  which  they  will 
be  powerless  to  exclude,  because  it  may  be  competent  as  against  other  de- 
fendants with  them  jointly  indicted. 

164  6.     These  defendants   cannot   have   a  fair,  legal   and  impartial  trial,  if 
tried  jointly  with  the  other  defendants. 


(5) 

VOL.  1. 

Affidavit  of  August  Spies,  Samuel  Fielden,  Michael  Schwab,  and 
Oscar  W.  Neebe,  shows  upon  information  and  belief,  that  upon  the  trial 
of  this  cause,  the  prosecution  intends  to  introduce  evidence  tending  to 
show  that  some  of  the  defendants  participated  in  a  meeting  held  on  May 
2d  and  in  a  meeting  held  on  May  3d,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  vio- 
lence might  or  would  be  used  thereafter,  and  pursuant  to  which  alleged 
conspiracy  the  death  of  M.  J.  Degan  on  May  4th  last  will  be  claimed  to 
have  been  caused;  that  affiants  had  neither  knowledge  of  or  consented 

165  to  or  counseled   the  holding  of   said  meetings,  nor   did  any  of  them  ever 
subsequently  thereto  acquiesce  in  or  adopt   any  action   or  policy  alleged 
to  have  been  adopted,  proposed  or  discussed  at  any  of  said  meetings. 

Affiants  are  advised  that  such  evidence  will  or  may  be  competent  as 
against  certain  other  defendants. 

Affiants  show  that  more  than  sixty  names  of  witnesses  are  endorsed 
on  back  of  indictment,  and  a  list  of  about  an  equal  number  of  additional 
witnesses  was  furnished  to  their  counsel  by  the  state's  attorney ;  that  the  trial 
will  be  very  lengthy;  that  if  evidence,  incompetent  as  to  them,  but  com- 
petent as  to  the  other  defendants,  will  be  introduced,  it  will  be  impossible 
for  the  jury  to  clearly  apply  such  evidence;  that  the  greatest  possible  pre- 
judice and  damage  will  result  therefrom  to  these  affiants,  and  that  the 
instructions  of  the  court  will  not  be  able  to  overcome  and  guard  against 
it  in  a  trial  of  the  magnitude  of  this;  and  that  the  only  possible  means  of 
their  obtaining  a  fair,  legal  and  impartial  trial  is  by  the  court  ordering  a 
separate  trial  for  these  affiants  from  the  remaining  defendants  jointly  in- 
dicted with  them. 

166  Affidavit  of   Moses  Salomon,  Sigmund   Zeisler,  W.  P.  Black  and  W. 
A.  Foster  shows  that  they  have,  since  their   respective  engagements  as 
counsel  of  defendants,  devoted   all   their  time   to  ascertaining   the  proof 
which  will  be  probably  offered   by  the  people  on  the  trial  of  this  cause; 
that  the  statements  relative  to  the  evidence  to  be  introduced,  contained  in 
the  foregoing  affidavit   of  defendants,  are  true,  and   that   they  verily  be- 
lieve that  the  only  means  of  obtaining   a  fair   and   impartial   trial  for  the 
defendants,  August  Spies,  Samuel   Fielden,  Michael  Schwab  and   Oscar 
W.  Neebe,  is  by  permitting  them    to  sever  in   their  trial   from  the  other 
defendants  jointly  with  them  indicted. 

167  Said  motion  was  overruled,  and  said  last  named  defendants  excepted. 
Albert  R.  Parsons  surrendered  himself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 

on  June  21,  1886,  and  being  called  upon  to  plead,  etc.,  to  said  indictment 
moved  the  court  to  quash  the  indictment  upon  the  same   grounds  as  em- 


(6) 

bodied  in  the  motion  of  the  other  defendants,  and  for  a  separate  trial 
from  the  defendants  Louis  Lingg,  George  Engel,  and  Adolph  Fischer, 
the  last  motion  being  based  upon  the  same  grounds  as  the  motion 
in  behalf  of  August  Spies,  Michael  Schwab,  Samuel  Fielden  and  Oscar 
W.  Neebe,  said  motions  were  severally  overruled,  and  said  defendant, 

Albert  R.  Parsons,  excepted. 
VOL.  o. 

1  The  following  instructions  were  given  on  behalf  of  the  people: 

i. 

2  The  court  instructs  the  jury  in  the  language  of  the  statute  that  murder 
is  the  unlawful  killing  of  a  human  being  in  the  peace  of  the  people,  with 
malice  aforethought,  either  expressed  or  implied.     An  unlawful   killing 
may  be  perpetrated  by  poisoning,  striking,  starving,  drowning,  stabbing, 
shooting,  or  by  any  other  of  the  various  forms  or  means  by  which  human 
nature  may  be  overcome,  and  death  thereby  occasioned. 

Express  malice  is  that  deliberate  intention  unlawfully  to  take  away 
the  life  of  a  fellow  creature  which  is  manifested  by  external  circum- 
stances capable  of  proof.  Malice  shall  be  implied  when  no  considerable 
provocation  appears,  or  when  all  the  circumstances  of  the  killing  show 
an  abandoned  and  malignant  heart. 

2. 

The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  whoever  is  guilty  of  murder  shall 
suffer  the  penalty  of  death  or  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  his 
natural  life,  or  for  a  term  not  less  than  fourteen  years.  If  the  accused 
or  any  of  them  are  found  guilty  by  the  jury,  the  jury  shall  fix  the  punish- 
ment by  their  verdict. 

3- 

The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  while  it  is  provided  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  every  person  may  freely  speak,  write 
and  publish  on  all  subjects,  he  is,  by  the  constitution,  held  responsible 
under  the  laws  for  the  abuse  of  the  liberty  so  given.  Freedom  of  speech 
is  limited  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  to  the  extent,  among 
other  limitations,  that  no  man  is  allowed  to  advise  the  committing  of  any 
crime  against  the  person  or  property  of  another;  and  the  statute  pro- 
vides: "  An  accessory  is  he  who  stands  by  and  aids,  abets  and  assists,  or 
who,  not  being  present,  aiding,  abetting  or  assisting,  hath  advised,  en- 
couraged, aided  or  abetted  the  perpetration  of  the  crime.  He  who  thus 


(7) 

VOL.  O. 

aids,  abets,  assists,  advises  or  encourages,  shall  be  considered  as  principal, 
and  punished  accordingly. 

Every  such  accessory,  when  the  crime  is  committed  within  or  with- 
out this  state  by  his  aid  or  procurement  in  this  state,  may  be  indicted 
and  convicted  at  the  same  time  as  the  principal,  or  before  or  after  his 
conviction,  whether  the  principal  is  convicted  or  amenable  to  justice  or 
not,  and  punished  as  principal. 

4- 

3  The   court  further  instructs  the  jury,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  if  they 

believe  from  the  evidence  in  this  case,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  the 
defendants,  or  any  of  them,  conspired  and  agreed  together,  or  with  others 
to  overthrow  the  law  by  force,  or  to  unlawfully  resist  the  officers  of  the 
law,  and  if  they  further  believe  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  that  in  pursuance  of  such  conspiracy  and  in  furtherance  of  the 
common  object,  a  bomb  was  thrown  by  a  member  of  such  conspiracy  at 
the  time,  and  that  Matthias  J.  Degan  was  killed,  then,  such  of  the 
defendants  that  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  to  have  been  parties  to  such  conspiracy,  are  guilty  of  murder, 
whether  present  at  the  killing  or  not,  and  whether  the  identity  of  the 
person  throwing  the  bomb  be  established  or  not. 

5- 

If  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that 
there  was  in  existence  in  this  county  and  state  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow 
the  existing  order  of  society,  and  to  bring  about  social  revolution  by 
force,  or  to  destroy  the  legal  authorities  of  this  city,  county  or  state  by 
force,  and  that  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  were  parties  to  such  con- 
spiracy, and  that  Degan  was  killed  in  the  manner  described  in  the 
indictment,  that  he  was  killed  by  a  bomb,  and  that  the  bomb  was 
thrown  by  a  party  to  the  conspiracy,  and  in  furtherance  of  the  objects 
of  the  conspiracy,  then  any  of  the  defendants  who  were  members  of 
such  conspiracy  at  that  time  are  in  this  case  guilty  of  murder,  and  that 
too,  although  the  jury  may  further  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the 
time  and  place  for  the  bringing  about  of  such  revolution,  or  the  destruc- 
one  of  such  authorities  had  not  been  definitely  agreed  upon  by  the  conspir- 
ators, but  was  left  to  them  and  the  exigencies  of  time,  or  to  the  judg- 
ment of  any  of  the  co-conspirators. 


(8) 

VOL.  O. 

5f 

4  If  these  defendants,  or  any  two   or  more  of  them,  conspired  together 
with  or  not  with  any  other  person  or  persons  to  excite  the  people  or  classes 
of  the  people  of  this  city  to  sedition,  tumult  and  riot,  to  use  deadly  weap- 
ons against  and  take  the  lives  of  other  persons,  as  a  means  to  carry  their 
designs  and  purposes  into  effect,- and  in  pursuance  of  such  conspiracy,  and 
in    furtherance  of  its   objects,  any  of   the  persons  so  conspiring  publicly 
by  print  or  speech  advised  or  encouraged  the  commission  of  murder 

without  designating  time,  place  or  occasion   at  which  it  should  be  done, 

fltf 

and  in  pursuance  of,  and  induced  by  such  advice  or  .encouragement,  mur- 
der was  committed,  then  all  of  such  conspirators  are  guilty  of  such  mur- 
der, whether  the  person  who  perpetrated  such  murder  can  be  identified 
or  not,  if  such  murder  was  committed  in  pursuance  of  such  advice  or 
encouragement,  and  was  induced  thereby,  it  does  not  matter  what  change 
if  any,  in  the  order  or  condition  of  society,  or  what,  if  any,  advantage  to 
themselves  or  others,  the  conspirators  proposed  as  the  result  of  their  con- 
spiracy, nor  does  it  matter  whether  such  advice  and  encouragement  had 
been  frequent  and  long-continued  or  not,  except  in  determining  whether 
the  perpetrator  was  or  was  not  acting  in  pursuance  of  such  advice  or  en- 
couragement, and  was  or  was  not  induced  thereby  to  commit  the  mur- 
der. If  there  was  such  conspiracy  as  in  this  instruction  is  recited, 
such  advice  or  encouragement  was  given,  and  murder  committed  in 
pursuance  of  and  induced  thereby,  then  all  such  conspirators  are  guilty 
of  murder.  Nor  does  it  matter,  if  there  was  such  a  conspiracy,  how 
impracticable  or  impossible  of  success  its  end  and  aims  were,  nor  how 
foolish  nor  ill-arranged  were  the  plans  for  its  execution,  except  as  bear- 
ing upon  the  question  whether  there  was  or  was  not  such  conspiracy. 

6. 

The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  a  conspiracy  may  be  established  by 
circumstantial  evidence  the  same  as  any  other  fact,  and  that  such  evidence 
is  legal  and  competent  for  that  purpose.  So  as  to  whether  an  act  which 
was  committed  was  done  by  a  member  of  the  conspiracy  may  be  estab- 
lished by  circumstantial  evidence,  whether  the  identity  of  the  individual 
who  committed  the  act  be  established  or  not;  and  also  whether  an  act 
done  was  in  pursuance  of  the  common  design  may  be  ascertained  by  the 

5  same  class  of  evidence,  and  if  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence  in  this 
case  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  defendants  or  any  of  them  con- 
spired and  agreed  together,  or    with    others   to   overthrow  the  law   by 


(9) 

3L.  O. 

force,  or  destroy  the  legal  authorities  of  this  city,  county  or  state  by 
force,  and  that  in  furtherance  of  the  common  design,  and  by  a  member 
of  such  conspiracy,  Matthias  J.  Degan  was  killed,  then  these  defend- 
ants, if  any,  whom  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reason- 
able doubt,  were  parties  to  such  conspiracy,  are  guilty  of  the  murder  of 
Matthias  J.  Degan,  whether  the  identity  of  the  individual  doing  the  kill- 
ing be  established  or  not,  or  whether  such  defendants  were  present  at 
the  time  of  the  killing  or  not. 

7- 

The  jury  are  instructed  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  all  who  take  part  in 
the  conspiracy  after  it  is  formed,  and  while  it  is  in  execution,  and  all  who 
with  knowledge  of  the  facts  concur  in  the  plan  originally  formed,  and 
aid  in  executing  them,  are  fellow  conspirators.  Their  concurrence  with- 
out proof  of  an  agreement  to  concur,  is  conclusive  against  them.  They 
commit  the  offense  when  they  become  parties  to  the  transaction  or  further 
the  original  plan  with  knowledge  of  the  conspiracy. 


The  court  instructs  the  jury  as  a  matter  of  law  that  circumstantial  evi- 
dence is  just  as  legal  and  just  as  effective  as  any  other  evidence,  pro- 
vided the  circumstances  are  of  such  a  character  and  force  as  to  satisfy 
the  minds  of  the  jury  of  the  defendants'  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

9- 

The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  what  is  meant  by  circumstantial  evi- 
dence in  criminal  cases  is  the  proof  of  such  facts  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with  or  surrounding  the  commission  of  the  crime  charged,  as  tend 
to  show  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  party  charged.  And  if  those  facts 
and  circumstances  are  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  jury  of  the  guilt  of  the  de- 
fendants beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  then  such  evidence  is  sufficient  to 
authorize  the  jury  in  finding  the  defendants  guilty. 

The  law  exacts  the  conviction,  wherever  there  is  sufficient  legal  evi- 
dence to  show  the  defendants'  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  and  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  is  legal  evidence. 

10. 

The  court  instructs  the  jury  as  a  matter  of  law  that  when  the  defend- 
ants, August  Spies,  Michael  Schwab,  Albert  R.  Parsons  and  Samuel 
Fielden  testified  as  witnesses  in  this  case,  each  became  the  same  as  any 


(10) 
VOL.  O. 

other  witness,  and  the  credibility  of  each  is  to  be  attested  by  and  sub- 
jected to  the  same  tests  as  are  legally  applied  to  any  other  witness;  and 
in  determining  the  degree  of  credibility  that  shall  be  accorded  to  the  tes- 
timony of  any  one  of  said  above  named  defendants,  the  jury  have  a 
right  to  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  he  is  interested  in  the  result 
of  this  prosecution,  as  well  as  his  demeanor  and  conduct  upon  the  wit- 
ness stand  during  the  trial,  and  the  jury  are  also  to  take  into  considera- 
tion the  fact,  if  such  is  the  fact,  that  he  has  been  contradicted  by  other 
witnesses.  And  the  court  further  instructs  the  jury  that  if,  after  consid- 
ering all  the  evidence  in  this  case,  they  find  that  any  one  of  said  defendants, 
August  Spies,  Michael  Schwab,  Albert  R.  Parsons  and  Samuel  Fielden, 
has  wilfully  and  corruptly  testified  falsely  to  any  fact  material  to  the  is- 
sue in  this  case,  they  have  the  right  to  entirely  disregard  his  testimony, 
except  in  so  far  as  his  testimony  is  corroborated  by  other  credible  evi- 
dence. - 

ii. 

The  rule  of  law  which  clothes  every  person  accused  of  crime  with 
the  presumption  of  innocence  and  imposes  upon  the  state  the  burden  of 
establishing  his  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  is  not  intended  to  aid 
any  one  who  is  in  fact  guilty  of  crime  to  escape,  but  is  a  human  provis- 
ion of  law,  intended,  so  far  as  human  agencies  can,  to  guard  against  the 
danger  of  any  innocent  person  being  unjustly  punished. 

12. 

7  The  court  instructs  the  jury  as  a  matter  of  law  that  in  considering  the 

case  the  jury  are  not  to  go  beyond  the  evidence  to  hunt  up  doubts,  nor 
must  they  entertain  such  doubts  as  are  merely  chimerical  or  conjectural. 
A  doubt  to  justify  an  acquittal  must  be  reasonable,  and  it  must  arise 
from  a  candid  and  impartial  investigation  of  all  the  evidence  in  the  case,  and 
unless  it  is  such  that  were  the  same  kind  of  doubt  interposed  in  the  graver 
transactions  of  life,  it  would  cause  a  reasonable  and  prudent  man  to  hes- 
itate and  pause,  it  is  insufficient  to  authorize  a  verdict  of  not  guilty.  If, 
after  considering  all  the  evidence,  you  can  say  you  have  an  abiding  con- 
viction of  the  truth  of  the  charge,  you  are  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt. 


The  court  further  instructs  the  jury,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  the  doubt 
which  the  juror  is  allowed  to  retain  on  his  own  mind,  and  under  the  influ- 


VOL.  O. 

ence  of  which  he  should  frame  a  verdict  of  not  guilt)-,  must  always  be  a 
reasonable  one.  A  doubt  produced  by  undue  sensibility  in  the  mind  of 
any  juror  in  view  of  the  consequences  of  his  verdict,  is  not  a  reasonable 
doubt,  and  a  juror  is  not  allowed  to  create  sources  or  materials  of  doubt 
by  resorting  to  trivial  and  fanciful  suppositions  and  remote  conjectures 
as  to  possible  states  of  fact  differing  from  that  established  by  the  evidence. 
You  are  not  at  liberty  to  disbelieve  as  jurors,  if  from  the  evidence  you 
believe  as  men;  your  oath  imposes  on  you  no  obligation  to  doubt  where 
no  doubt  would  exist  if  no  oath  had  been  administered. 


The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  they  are  the  judges  of  the  law  as 
well  as  the  facts  in  this  case,  and  if  they  can  say,  upon  their  oaths,  that 
they  know  the  law  better  than  the  court  itself,  they  have  the  right  to  do 
so;  but  before  assuming  so  solemn  a  responsibility,  they  should  be  as- 
sured that  they  are  not  acting  from  caprice  or  prejudice,  that  they  are 
not  controlled  by  their  will  or  their  wishes,  but  from  a  deep  and  confident 
conviction  that  the  court  is  wrong  and  that  they  are  right.  Before  say- 
ing this,  upon  their  oaths,  it  is  their  duty  to  reflect  whether  from  their 
study  and  experience  they  are  better  qualified  to  judge  of  the  law  than 
the  court.  If,  under  all  the  circumstances,  they  are  prepared  to  say  that 
the  court  is  wrong  in  its  exposition  of  the  law,  the  statute  has  given 
them  that  right. 

14. 

In  this  case  the  jury  may,  as  in  their  judgment  the  evidence  warrants, 
find  any  or  all  of  the  defendants  guilty  or  not,  or  all  of  them  not  guilty; 
and  if,  in  their  judgment,  the  evidence  warrants,  they  may,  in  case  they 
find  the  defendants  or  any  of  them  guilty,  fix  the  same  penalty  for  all 
the  defendants  found  guilty,  or  different  penalties  for  the  different  defend- 
ants found  guilty. 

In  case  they  find  the  defendants  or  any  of  them  guilty  of  murder, 
they  should  fix  the  penalty  either  at  death  or  at  imprisonment  in  the  peni- 
tentiary for  life,  or  at  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  a  term  of 
any  number  of  years,  not  less  than  fourteen. 

To  the  giving  of  which  instructions  and  every  one  of  them,  respec- 
tively, the  defendants  then  and  there  severally  excepted. 

The  following  instructions  asked  by  the  defendants  were  refused  by 
the  court: 


(12) 
VOL.  O. 

10  i.     No  person  can  be  legally  convicted  under  the  laws  of  Illinois   on 
account  of  any  opinion  or  principles   entertained  by  him.     It   cannot  be 
material  in  this  case  that  defendants,  or  some  of  them   are  or  may  be 
socialists,  communists  or  anarchists,  and  no  prejudice  ought  to   be  borne 
against  them  on   account  thereof  by  the  jury,   although  the  jury  may 
believe  their  doctrines  are  false  and  pernicious. 

2 .  If  you  believe  from  the  evidence  that  it  was  only  manslaughter  in 
the  person  inflicting  the  injury  which  caused  the  death  of  Mathias  J. 
Degan,  then  it  was  only  manslaughter  in  the  accessory. 

If,  therefore,  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence  that  on  the  night  of 
the  41)1  of  May,  the  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  were  present 
at  a  meeting  held  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  situation  of  laboring 
men,  and  advising  them  to  insist  upon  their  demands  by  the  use  of  force, 
and  the  deceased,  Mathias  J.  Degan,  was  one  among  a  number  of  police 
officers  who  attempted  unlawfully  to  disperse  the  meeting;  and  there- 
upon some  person,  while  resisting  the  act  of  the  police,  upon  a  sudden 
heat  and  passion,  and  without  premeditation  or  malice,  threw  the  missile 
while  resisting  such  unlawful  arrest,  then  the  perpetrator  of  the  act  is 
only  guilty  of  manslaughter. 

11  3.     The  court  instructs  the  jury  that,  in  order  to  convict  these  defend- 
ants, they  must  not  only  find  that  they  entered  into  an  illegal  conspiracy, 
and  that  the  Haymarket  meeting  was  an  unlawful  assembly  in  aid  of  said 
conspiracy,  but  that  in  addition  thereto  that  the   bomb  by  which  Officer 
Degan   lost  his  life  was  cast  by  a  member  of  said  conspiracy  in  aid  of 
the  common  design,  or  by  a  person  outside  of  said  conspiracy,  aided  and 
advised  by  all  or  some  one  of  these  defendants;  but  in  any  event,  should 
you  find  such  a  conspiracy  from  the  evidence  to  have  been   in  existence, 
any  one  or  more   of  these  defendants  not  found  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt   to   have  been   a  member  thereof,   and  who  is  or  are  not  proved 
beyond   a  reasonable   doubt  to  have  been    present    at    the    Haymarket 
meeting,  or  who,  if  present,  did  not  knowingly  counsel,   aid  or  abet  the 
throwing  of  the  bomb  by  which  officer  Degan  lost  his  life,  such  defend- 
ant or  defendants  you  are  bound  to  acquit. 

4.  The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  the  prosecution  is  bound  to  prove 
the  guilt  of  the  defendants  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  before  they  are  called 
upon  to  offer  any  evidence  of  their  innocence,  and  if  the  guilt  of  any  of 
these  defendants,  on  the  testimony  of  the  state,  should  be  established 
beyond  reasonable  doubt  in  your  minds,  and  such  defendant  by  the  testi- 
mony introduced  by  him  awakens  an  apprehension  in  your  minds  that 


('3) 

VOL.  O. 

he  is  not  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  on  the  whole  of  the  evidence 
taken  together  of  the  crime  as  laid  in  the  indictment,  you  are  bound  to 
acquit  such  defendants. 

5.  The  court  instructs  the  jury,  that  the  policy  of  our  law  deems  it  bet- 
ter that  many  guilty  persons  should  escape  rather  than  that  one  innocent 
person  should  be  convicted  and  punished;  so  that,  unless  the  jury,  after 
a  careful  and  thorough  consideration  of  all  the  evidence  in  the  case,  can 
say  and  feel  that  every  material  allegation  in  the  indictment  is  proved 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  the  jury  should  find  the  defendants  not 
guilty. 

12  6.     The  court  instructs  the  jury,  if  you  believe  from  the  evidence  that 

on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May  the  defendants  or  some  of  them  were 
holding  a  meeting  on  the  Haymarket  for  the  purposes  of  discussing  the 
grievances  of  the  workingmen,  and  of  advising  them  to  forcibly  insist 
upon  their  demands  from  their  employers,  and  the  police,  although  aware 
of  the  object  of  the  meeting,  and  the  lawful  authorities  invested  with  the 
power  of  dispersing  said  meeting,  and  being  present,  sanctioned  and 
conceded  its  lawfulness,  yet  a  police  officer,  having  the  charge,  direction 
and  control  of  a  large  number  of  police  officers,  of  his  own  volition,  go 
upon  the  scene  of  the  meeting  for  the  pretended  purpose  of  dispersing 
it,  but  in  fact  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  lives  of  all  the  persons 
there  assembled,  and  some  person  in  the  meeting  having  a  reason  to  ap- 
prehend that  such  was  the  real  purpose  of  the  police  force,  in  order  to 
avoid  being  killed,  hurl  a  deadly  missile  at  such  officers,  whereby  the 
life  of  the  deceased,  Matthias  J.  Degan,  who  was  one  of  said  officers, 
was  destroyed,  then,  in  the-  eye  of  the  law,  such  act  of  the  person 
throwing  the  missile  is  justifiable,  and  neither  he  nor  the  persons  with 
whom  he  is  associated,  can  be  held  responsible  for  the  act. 

7.  While  any  act  done  by  a  member  of  an  unlawful  conspiracy  in  fur- 
therance of  the  common  design  is  the  act  of  all;  yet  collateral  acts  carry 
responsibility  only  to  the  individual  or  individuals  perpetrating  them;  the 
court  instructs  you,  gentlemen,  that  should  you  find  that  the  defendants 
illegally  conspiring  to  overthrow  the  government,  but  that  they  de- 
clared to  their  fellow  conspirators  that  nothing  should  be  done  in  fur- 
therance of  the  common  design,  beyond  the  making  of  speeches,  should 
these  be  found  by  you  to  be  in  furtherance  thereof,  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting,  but  that,  notwithstanding  that  declaration,  a  member  of  the 
conspiracy  so  found  to  be  in  existence,  of  his  own  volition,  out  of  the  de- 
pravity of  his  own  heart,  impelled  by  a  vicious,  depraved  mind,  contrary 


(H) 

VOL.  O. 

to  the  advice,  intention  and  design  of  these  defendants,  threw  the  bomb 
by  which  officer  Degan  lost  his  life,  such  throwing  was  a  collateral  act 
for  which  these  defendants  are  not  liable,  and  so  finding,  you  must  acquit 
them. 

13  8.     If  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the  defendants   or  any 
one  of  them  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  bring  about  a  change  of  govern- 
ment for  the  amelioration  of  the  condition   of  the   working   classes   by 
peaceable  means,  if  possible,  but  if  necessary  to  resort  to  force  for  that 
purpose,  and  that   in   addition   thereto  in   pursuance  of  that  object  the 
Hay  market  meeting  was  assembled   by  such  conspirator  or  conspirators 
to  discuss  the  best  means  to  right  the  grievances  of  the  working  classes, 
without  any  intention  of  doing  any  unlawful  act   on   that  occasion,  and 
while    so   assembled   the  bomb  by    which  officer  Degan  lost    his    life 
was  thrown   by  a   person   outside  of  said  conspiracy,   and  without  the 
knowledge  and   approval   of  the  defendant  or  defendants,  so  found  to 
have  entered   into   said   conspiracy,  then   and   in  that  case  the  court  in- 
structs the  jury  that  they  are  bound  to  acquit  the  defendants. 

9.  The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  it  is  not  enough  to  find  that  the 
defendants  unlawfully  conspired  to  overthrow  the  present  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  that  the  Haymarket  meeting  was  an  unlawful  assembly  called 
by  these  defendants  in  furtherance  of  that  conspiracy,  but  you  must  find, 
in  addition  thereto,  that  the  bomb  by  which  officer  Degan  lost  his  life 
was  thrown  by  a  member  of  said  conspiracy,  in  aid  of  the  common  de- 
sign; or  if  you  should  find  that  it  was  thrown  by  a  person  not  proved 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  to  have  been  a  member  of  said  conspiracy, 
then  you  must  find  that  these  defendants  knowingly  aided  and  abetted 
or  advised  such  bomb  thrower  to  do  the  act,  otherwise  you  are  bound  to 
acquit  them. 

IV. 

14  10.     The  mere  confession  of  Lingg  that  he  was  at  the  meeting  of  the 
night   of  the  3d   of  May  is  insufficient  to  establish  the  fact  that  he  was 
there,  and  if  you  believe  that  it  is  shown  by  other  satisfactory  evidence 
that  Lingg  was  not  at  that  meeting  and  knowingly  did  no  act  in  further- 
ance  of  the   plan  of  the  meetings,  and  was  not  present  at  the  meeting 
held  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of   May,   then   he  is  entitled  to  an  acquittal 
at  your  hands. 

n.    The  court  further  instructs  the  jury,  that  unless  you  find  from  the 


VOL.  O. 

evidence,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  ex- 
isting to  which  the  defendants  or  some  of  them  were  parties,  and  that 
the  act  resulting  in  the  death  of  Malhias  J.  Degan  was  done  by  some- 
body who  was  a  party  to  said  conspiracy,  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
common  design  of  said  conspiracy,  you  must  find  the  defendants  not 
guilty,  unless  the  evidence  convinces  you,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt, 
that  the  defendants  or  any  of  them  personally 'committed  the  act  re- 
sulting in  the  death  of  Mathias  J.  Degan,  as  charged  in  the  indictment, 
or  that  the  defendants  or  any  of  them  stood  by  and  aided,  abetted  or 
assisted,  or  not  being  present,  had  advised,  aided,  encouraged  or 
abetted  the  perpetration  of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indictment,  and 
then  you  should  find  guilty  only  those  defendants  as  to  whom  the  evi- 
dence satisnes  you,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  they  thus  com- 
mitted or  aided  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indict- 
ment. 

12.  The  court  instructs  the  jury,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  the  guilt  of 
any  person,  charged  as  accessory  before  the  fact  to  any  crime,  is  dependent 
upon  the  guilt  of  the  principal.  And  before  you  can  find  any  of  the  de- 
fendants guilty  as  accessory  before  the  fact  to  the  crime  charged  in  the 
indictment,  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  state  to  show  who  did  the  act  re- 
sulting in  the  death  of  Mathias  J.  Degan,  as  charged  in  the  indictment, 
and  the  evidence  must  convince  you,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  of 
the  guilt  of  that  person  thus  shown  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  to  have 
done  the  act,  and  unless  you  are  satisfied  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt 
of  the  principal,  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit  the  person  sought  to  be  held  as 
accessory. 

15  13.    The  court  further  instructs  the  jury,  that  under  the  constitution  of 

this  state  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  assemble  in  a  peaceable  man- 
ner to  consult  for  what  they  believe  to  be  the  common  good,  and  that  so 
long  as  such  meeting  is  peaceably  conducted,  orderly,  and  not  tending 
to  riot  or  a  breach  of  the  peace,  no  official  or  authority  has  or  can  have 
.  any  legal  right  to  attempt  the  dispersal  thereof  in  a  forcible  manner. 
Such  attempt,  if  made,  would  be  unwarranted  and  illegal,  and  might 
legally  be  resisted  with  such  necessary  and  reasonable  degree  of  force 
as  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  such  dispersal. 

If  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence  in  this  cause  that  the  meeting  of 
May  4,  1886,  was  called  for  a  legal  purpose,  and  at  the  time  it  was 
ordered  to  disperse  by  the  police  was  being  conducted  in  an  orderly  and 
peaceable  manner  and  was  about  peaceably  to  disperse;  and  that  the 


VOL.  O. 

defendants,  or  those  participating  in  said  meeting,  had,  in  connection 
therewith,  no  illegal  or  felonious  purpose  or  design,  then  the  order  for 
the  dispersal  thereof  was  unauthorized,  illegal,  and  in  violation  of  the 
rights  of  said  assembly  and  of  the  people  who  were  then  gathered. 

And  if  the  jury  further  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the  meeting 
was  a  quiet  and  orderly  meeting,  lawfully  convened,  and  that  the  order 
for  its  dispersal  was  unauthorized  and  illegal  under  the  provisions  of 
the  constitution  of  this  state  referred  to,  and  that  upon  such  order  being 
given,  some  person  in  said  gathering,  without  the  knowledge,  aid,  coun- 
sel, procurement,  encouragement  or  abetting  of  the  defendants,  or  any 
of  them,  then  or  theretofore  given,  and  solely  because  of  his  own 
passion,  fear,  hatred,  malice  or  ill-will,  or  in  pursuance  of  his  view 
of  the  right  of  self-defense,  threw  a  bomb  among  the  police,  where- 
from  resulted  the  murder  or  homicide  charged  in  the  indictment,  then 
the  defendants  would  not  be  liable  for  the  results  of  such  bomb,  and 
your  verdict  should  be  not  guilty. 

14.  The  court  further  instructs  the  jury  that  the  mere  manufacture  and 
disposition  of  deadly  weapons  does  not  of  itself  make  the  party  so  manu- 
facturing or  disposing  thereof  responsible  thereof  for  murder  committed 
therewith  by  third  parties.  Before  such  manufacturer  or  distributor  can 
be  held  liable  for  a  murder  committed  by  a  third  party,  it  must  be  made 
to  appear  by  credible  evidence,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  such 
manufacturer  or  distributor  countenanced,  advised,  aided,  encouraged  or 
abetted  the  particular  act  of  such  third  party,  which  resulted  in  the  homi- 
cide, and  was  thus  himself  in  contemplation  of  law  accessory  to  the  par- 
ticular act  charged  as  a  crime. 

16  1 5.    If  the  jury  are  satisfied  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  a  conspiracy 

was  formed,  participated  in  by  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  to  commit  a 
breach  of  the  peace  and  to  use  violence  in  the  event  of  a  collision  between 
the  police  and  the  striking  workmen,  or  others  and  further  find  a  crime 
was  committed  at  the  Haymarket  by  the  killing  of  Degan,  still,  if  from 
any  reasonable  hypothesis,  the  jury  believe  that  some  one  else  than  any 
of  defendants  unaided,  unassisted  and  unadvised  by  defendants  or  any 
one  of  them  may  have  committed  said  crime,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury 
to  acquit  all  of  said  defendants. 

16.  The  court  instructs  the  jury  that,  although  you  may  find  from  the 
evidence,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  defendants  or  some  of 
them  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy,  this  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant 
a  verdict  of  guilty  as  to  those  defendants  thus  believed  to  have  been  en- 


VOL.  O. 

gaged  in  said  conspiracy;  but  before  you  can  find  those  defendants  guilty, 
the  evidence  must  also  establish,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  the 
party  who  committed  the  act  resulting  in  the  death  of  Mathias  J.  Degan 
was  a  party  to  said  conspiracy,  and  that  said  act  was  done  in  furtherance 
of  the  common  design  entertained  by  said  conspiracy. 

17.     If  the  jury  are  satisfied  that  a  conspiracy  was  formed,  participated 
in   by  defendants  or  some  of  them,  to  commit  a  breach  of  the  peace  and 
to  use  violence  in  the  event  of  a  collision  between  the  police  and  the  striking 
workmen  or  others,  and  further  find  that  a  crime  was  committed  at  the 
.  Haymarket  by  the  killing  of  Degan,  still,  unless  you  believe  from  the 
evidence  that  the  death  of  Degan  was  caused  by  some  one  of  the  sup- 
posed conspirators,  in  pursuance  of  the  common  design,  and  further  that 
a  person  who  was  a  co-conspirator  committed   the  act  which  caused  the 
death  of  Degan,  the  defendants  are  entitled  to  an  acquittal. 
17  18.     Although  certain  of  the  defendants  may  have  advised  the  use  of 

force  in  opposition  to  the  legally  constituted  authorities,  or  the  overthrow 
of  the  laws  of  the  land,  yet  unless  the  jury  can  find,  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt,  that  they  specifically  threw  the  bomb  which  killed  Degan,  or 
aided,  advised,  counseled,  assisted  or  encouraged  said  act,  or  the  doing 
of  some  illegal  act  or  the  accomplishment  of  some  act  by  illegal  means 
in  the  furtherance  of  which  said  bomb  was  :hrown,  you  should  return 
said  defendants  not  guilty. 

19.  If  the  person  who  threw  the  bomb  which  killed  Degan,  did  so  in 
heat  of  passion  from  the  sudden  appearance  of  the  police  and  the  order 
to  disperse  given,  or  for  any  other  reason,  or  from  any  other  cause,  but 
without  deliberation,  premeditation  or  malice,  he  would  then  be  guilty  of 
manslaughter  only,  and  not  murder. 

20.  If  the  principal  is  guilty  of  the  crime  of  manslaughter  only,  the 
accessories  before  the  fact  to  his  crime  can  be  guilty  of  no  greater  crime; 
that  is,  the  parties  that  plan  a  crime  are  guilty  in  no  greater  degree  than 
the  one  who  executes  the  plan  and  commits  the  act. 

21.  The  jury  may  find  from  the  whole  evidence  that  the  person  who 
threw  the-bomb  which  killed  Degan,  acted  upon  his  own  responsibility,  and 
that  defendants,  nor  any  of  them,  were  in  any  way  connected  with  said 
act.     If  the  jury  so  find,  the  defendants  must  be  acquitted. 

This  proposition  being  true,  it  is  also  true,  that  before  defendants  or 
any  of  them  can  be  convicted,  the  people  must  prove  that  they  either 
threw  the  bomb,  or  that  the  same  was  thrown  by  and  through  their  pro- 
curement or  agency,  and  with  their  knowledge,  consent,  procurement 
and  advice. 


VOL.  O. 

18  22.     The  fact,  if  such  is  the  fact,  that  the  defendant  Neebe  circulated 
or  distributed  or  handled  a  few  copies  of  the  so-called  Revenge  circular, 
and  while  doing  so  said   substantially:     "Six  workmen  have  been  killed 
at   McCormick's  last  night   by  the  police;  perhaps  the  time  will  come 
when  it  may  go  the  other  way,"  is  not  of  itself  sufficient  to  connect  him 
with  the  killing  of  Degan,  nor  is  the  fact  that  he  had  in  his  house  a  red 
flag,  a  gun,  a  revolver  and  a  sword  sufficient,  even  when   taken  together 
with  the  other  statement   contained   in    this  construction,  to  connect  said 
Neebe  with  the  act  which  resulted  in  the  death  of  Degan,  as  charged  in 
this  indictment. 

23.  There  has  not  been  introduced  any  evidence  in  this  case  to  either 
show    that   the    defendant    Neebe,  by   any  declaration,  either    spoken 
or  written,  has  advised  or  encouraged  the  use   of  violence   or  the  doing 
of  any  act  in  any  way  connected  with  the  offense  at   the    Haymarket,  at 
which  Degan  was  killed;  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  he  was  engaged 
at  any  time  in  any  conspiracy  to  do  any  unlawful  act,  or  the  doing  of 
any  act  in  an  unlawful  manner,  in  the  furtherance   of  which  said  Degan 
was  killed,  and  therefore  the  state  has  not  established  any  case  as  against 
the  defendant  Neebe,  and  you  are  therefore   instructed   to  render  a  ver- 
dict of  not  guilty  as  to  him. 

24.  The  jury  are  instructed  to  return  a  verdict  of  not  guilty  as  to  the 
defendant  Neebe. 

25.  The  defendants  in  this  case  cannot  be  convicted  upon  the   mere 
proof  of  advice  that  the  use  of  force  and  dynamite  should  be  resorted  to 
generally,  but  such  proof  must  specially  refer  to  some  circumstance,  time, 
place  or  event,  so  that  such  advice  is  directly  traceable  to  the  crime,  and 
the  crime  clearly  leads  back  to  such  counsel.     If  this  proposition  is  not 
established  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  the  connection  between  defendants 
(if  they  did  not   themselves  throw   the  bomb)  and   the  person  who  did 
throw  said  bomb  is  not  established,  and  the  defendants  must  be  acquitted. 

19  To   the  refusal  of  the  court  to  give  above  instructions,  and  each  and 
every  one  of  them,  the  defendants  severally  excepted. 

Instructions  given  on  behalf  of  defendants: 

20  The  jury  in  a  criminal  case  are  the  judges  of  the  law  and  the  evidence, 
and  have  to  act  according  to  their  best  judgment  of  such  law  and   the 
facts. 

The  jury  have  a  right  to  disregard  the  instructions  of  the  court,  pro- 
vided they  can  say  upon  their  oaths  that  they  believe  they  know  the 
law  better  than  the  court. 


VOL.  O. 

The  law  presumes  the  defendants  innocent  of  the  charge  in  the  indict- 
ment until  the  jury  are  satisfied  by  the  evidence,  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt,  of  the  guilt  of  the  defendants. 

If  a  reasonable  doubt  of  any  facts,  necessary  to  convict  the  accused,  is 
raised  in  the  minds  of  the  jury  by  the  evidence  itself,  or  by  the  ingenuity 
of  counsel  upon  any  hypothesis  reasonably  consistent  with  the  evidence, 
that  doubt  is  decisive  in  favor  of  the  prisoners'  acquittal.  A  verdict  of 
not  guilty  simply  means  that  the  guilt  of  the  accused  has  not  been 
demonstrated  in  the  precise,  specific  and  narrow  forms  prescribed  by 
law. 

21  No  jury  should  convict  anybody  of  crime  upon   mere   suspicion,  how- 
ever strong,  or  because  there   is  a    preponderance  of   all    the  evidence 
against  him,  but  the  jury  must  be  convinced  of  the  defendants'  guilt,  be- 
yond all  reasonable  doubt,  before  they  can  lawfully  convict. 

The  law  does  "not  require  the  defendants  to  prove  themselves  innocent, 
but  the  burden  of  proof  that  they  are  guilty  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt 
is  upon  the  prosecution. 

The  indictment  is  of  itself  a  mere  accusation  and  no  proof  of  the  guilt 
of  the  defendants. 

The  presumption  of  the  innocence  of  the  defendants  is  not  a  mere 
form,  but  an  essential  substantial  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  jury  to  give  the  defendants  the  full  benefit  of  this  pre- 
sumption in  this  case. 

It  is  incumbent  upon  the  prosecution  to  prove  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt  every  material  allegation  in  the  indictment,  and  unless  that  has 
been  done,  the  jury  should  find  the  defendants  not  guilty. 

22  The   burden   is   upon  the   prosecution   to  prove   by  credible  evidence 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  defendants  are  guilty  as  charged  in 
the  indictment  of  the  murder  of  Mathias  J.  Degan;  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
jury  to  acquit  any  of  the  defendants   as  to  whom  there  is  a  failure   of 
such  proof.     The  jury   are   not  at   liberty  to  adopt   any  unreasonable 
theories  or  suppositions  in  considering  the  evidence  in  order  to  justify  a 
verdict  of  conviction. 

A  reasonable  doubt  is  that  state  of  mind,  in  which  the  jury,  after  con- 
sidering all  the  evidence,  cannot  say  they  feel  an  abiding  faith  amounting 
to  a  moral  certainty,  from  the  evidence  in  the  case,  that  the  defendants 
are  guilty  as  charged  in  the  indictment. 

The  rules  of  evidence  as  to  the  amount  of  evidence  in  this  case  are 
different  from  those  in  a  civil  case;  a  mere  preponderance  of  evidence 
would  not  warrant  a  verdict  of  guilty. 


(20) 
VOL.  O.      . 

23  Mere  probability  of  the  defendants'  guilt  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant  a 
conviction. 

Your  personal  opinions  as  to  facts  not  proved  cannot  be  the  basis  of 
your  verdict,  but  you  must  form  your  verdict  from  the  evidence,  and 
that  alone,  unaided  and  uninfluenced  by  any  opinions  or  presumptions 
not  founded  upon  the  evidence. 

The  jury  are  the  sole  judges  of  the  credibility  of  witnesses,  and  in 
passing  thereon  may  consider  their  prejudices,  motives  or  feelings  of 
revenge,  if  any  such  have  appeared,  and  if  the  jury  believe  from  the 
evidence  that  any  witness  has  knowingly  or  wilfully  testified  falsely  as 
to  any  material  fact,  they  may  disregard  his  entire  testimony,  unless  it  is 
corroborated  by  other  credible  evidence. 

24  If  one  single  fact  is  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  which 
is  inconsistent   with  the   guilt  of  a   defendant,  this   is  sufficient  to  raise  a 
reasonable  doubt  as  to  his  guilt  and  entitles  him  to  an  acquittal.  In  order 
to  justify  the  inference  of  legal   guilt  from   circumstantial  evidence,  the 
existence  of  the  inculpatory  facts  must  be  absolutely  incompatible  with 
the  innocence  of  the  accused  upon  any  rational  theory. 

The  witnesses,  Gottfried  Waller  and  Wilhelm  Seliger,  are  accom- 
plices, and  while  a  person  accused  of  crime  may  be  convicted  upon  the 
uncorroborated  testimony  of  an  accomplice,  still  the  jury  should  weigh 
it  with  great  care  and  caution,  and  convict  upon  it  only,  if  they  are  satis- 
fied beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  of  its  truth. 

If  you  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the  witnesses  Gottfried  Waller 
and  Wilhelm  Seliger  were  induced  to  become  witnesses  by  any  promise 
of  immunity  from  punishment,  or  by  any  hope  held  out  to  them,  that  it 
would  go  easier  with  them  in  case  they  disclosed  who  their  confederates 
were,  or  in  case  they  implicated  some  one  else  in  the  crime,  then  you 
should  take  such  facts  into  consideration  in  determining  the  weight  to 
be  given  to  their  testimony. 

25  Same  instruction  in  regard  to  the   testimony  of  any  other  witnesses 
for  the  prosecution. 

The  testimony  of  an  accomplice  should  be  subjected  to  critical  exami- 
nation in  the  light  of  all  the  other  evidence. 

A  person  charged  with  crime  may  testify  in  his  own  behalf,  but  his 
neglect  to  do  so  shall  not  create  any  presumption  against  him. 

The  jury  should  endeavor  to  reconcile  the  testimony  of  the  defendants' 
witnesses  with  the  belief  that  all  of  them  endeavored  to  tell  the  truth, 
and  you  should  attribute  any  contradictions  or  differences  in  their  testi- 


(21) 
VOL.  O. 

mony  to  mistake  or  misrecollection  rather  than  to  a  wilful  intention  to 
swear  falsely,  if  you  can  reasonably  do  so  under  the  evidence. 

26  The  jury  should  fairly  and  impartially  consider  the   testimony  of  the 
defendants,  together  with  all  the  other  evidence. 

If  the  verbal  admission  of  a  defendant  is  offered  in  evidence,  the 
whole  of  the  admission  must  be  taken  together,  and  those  parts  which 
are  in  favor  of  the  defendant  are  entitled  to  as  much  consideration  as 
any  other  parts,  unless  disproved,  or  apparently  improbable  or  untrue, 
when  considered  with  all  the  other  evidence. 

It  would  be  improper  for  the  jury  to  regard  any  statements  of  the 
prosecuting  attorneys  not  based  upon  the  evidence,  as  entitled  to  any 
weight. 

If  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  relied  on  by  the  people  to  secure  a 
conviction  can  be  reasonably  acounted  for,  upon  any  theory  consistent 
with  the  innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  then  you  should 
acquit  such  of  them  as  to  whom  the  facts  proven  can  thus  be  accounted 
for. 

27  It  is  not  enough  to  warrant  the  conviction  of  a   person  charged  with 
crime  that  he  contemplated  the  commission  of  such  crime.     If  any  reas- 
onable hypothesis  exists  that  such  crime   may  have  been   committed   by 
another  in  no  way  connected  with  the  defendants,  the  accused  should  be 
acquitted. 

If  the  evidence  leaves  a  reasonable  doubt  of  the  guilt  of  the  defend- 
ants, as  charged  in  the  indictment,  the  jury  should  acquit,  although  the 
evidence  may  show  conduct  of  no  less  turpitude  than  the  crime 
charged. 

The  allusions  and  references  of  the  prosecuting  attorneys  to  the  sup- 
posed dangerous  character  of  any  views  entertained  or,  principles  con- 
tended for  by  the  accused,  should  in  no  way  influence  you  in  determin- 
ing this  case. 

Individuals  and  communities  have  the  legal  right  to  arm  themselves  for 
the  defense  and  protection  of  their  persons  and  property,  and  a  proposi- 
tion by  any  person,  publicly  proclaimed,  to  arm  for  such  protection  and 
defense,  is  not  an  offense  against  the  laws  of  this  state. 

If  the  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  agreed  together,  or  with  others, 
in  the  event  of  the  workingmen  or  strikers,  that  they  (defendants) 

would  assist  the  strikers  to  resist  such  an  attack,  this  would  not  consti- 

k 

tute  conspiracy  if  the  anticipated  attack  was  unjustified  and  illegal,  and 
such  contemplated  resistance  simply  the  opposing  of  force  wrongfully 
and  illegally  exercised,  by  force  sufficient  to  repel  said  assault. 


(22) 
VOL.  O. 

28  The  burden  is  not  cast  upon  the  defendants  of  proving  that  the  person 
who  threw  the  bomb  was  not  acting  under  their  advice,  teaching  or  pro- 
curement.    Unless  the  evidence  proves  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that 
either  some  of  the  defendants  threw  said  bomb,  or  that  the  person  who 
threw  it  acted  under  the  advice  and  procurement  of  defendants  or  some 
of  them,  the  defendants  should  be  acquitted.     Such  advice  may  not  nec- 
essarily be  special  as  to  the  bomb,  but  general,  so  as  to  include  it. 

It  is  not  proper  for  the  jury  to  guess  that  the  person  who  threw  the 
bomb  was  instigated  to  do  the  act  by  the  procurement  of  defendants  or 
any  of  them.  There  must  be  a  direct  connection  established  by  credible 
evidence  between  the  advice  and  the  consummation  of  the  crime,  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt. 

29  The  bomb  might  have  been  thrown  by  some  one  unfamiliar  with,  and 
unprompted  by,  the  teachings  of  the  defendants  or  any  of  them.    Before 
defendants  can  be   held  liable   therefor,  the  evidence   must  satisfy  you 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  person   throwing   said  bomb  was 
acting  as  the  result  of  the  teaching  or  encouragement  of  defendants   or 
some  of  them. 

Before  a  person  charged  as  accessory  to  a  crime  can  be  convicted,  the 
evidence  must  prove  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  crime  was  com- 
mitted by  some  person  acting  under  the  advice,  aid,  encouragement, 
abetting  or  procurement  of  the  defendant  whose  conviction  as  accessory 
is  sought.  Though  you  may  believe  from  the  evidence  that  a  party  in 
fact  advised  the  commission  in  certain  contingencies  of  acts  amounting  to 
crime,  yet  if  the  act  complained  of  was  in  fact  committed  by  some  third 
party  of  his  own  mere  volition,  hatred,  malice  or  ill-will  and  not  material- 
ly influenced,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  by  such  advice  of  the  party 
charged,  or  any  party,  for  whose  advice  the  defendants  are  responsible, 
the  party  charged  would  not  in  such  case  be  responsible. 

If  you  find  that  at  a  meeting  held  on  the  evening  of  May  3d  at  54  W. 
Lake  street,  at  which  some  of  the  defendants  were  present,  it  was  agreed 
that  in  the  event  of  a  collision  between  the  police,  militia  or  firemen  and 
the  striking  laborers,  certain  armed  organizations,  of  which  some  of  the 
defendants  were  members,  should  meet  at  certain  places  in  Chicago,  that 
a  committee  should  attend  public  places  and  meetings  where  an  attack 
by  the  police  and  others  might  be  expected,  and  in  the  event  of  such 
attack  report  the  same  to  said  organizations  to  the  end  that  such  attack 
might  be  resisted  and  the  police  stations  of  the  city  destroyed,  still,  if 

30  the  evidence  does  not  prove  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  throw- 


VOL.  O. 

ing  of  the  bomb  which  killed  Mathias  J.  Degan  was  the  result  of  any  act 
in  furtherance  of  the  common  design  herein  stated,  and  if  it  may  have 
been  the  unauthorized  and  individual  act  of  some  person  acting  upon  his 
own  responsibility  and  volition,  then  none  of  the  defendants  can  be  held 
responsible  therefor  on  account  of  said  W.  Lake  street  meeting. 

31  The  following  instruction  on   behalf  of  the  defendant,  Louis  Lingg, 
,          was  refused  by  the  court: 

32  It  is  not  enough  to  warrant  the  conviction  of  the  defendant  Lingg  that 
he    may  have    manufactured    the    bomb,  the  explosion  of  which    killed 
Mathias  J.  Degan.     He  must  have  aided,  abetted  or  advised  the  explod- 
ing of  the   bomb  or  the  doing  of  some  illegal   act,  or  the   doing  of  a 
legal  act  in  an  unlawful  manner,  in  the  furtherance  of  which  and  as  inci- 
dent thereto  the  same  was  exploded  and  said  Degan  killed.     If,  as  to  the 
defendant  Linng,  the  jury  should  find  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that 
he  did  in  fact  manufacture    said   bomb,  but  are  not  satisfied  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt  that  he  aided,  advised,  counseled  or  abetted  the  throw- 
ing of  said  missile   or  the  doing  of  any  unlawful   act  which  resulted  in 
the  explosion  of  said  bomb,  your  verdict  should  acquit  him,  so  far  as  the 
establishment  of  his  guilt  is  attempted   by  the  manufacture  of  said   mis- 
sile or  bomb. 

33  Which   instructions  the    court    marked    as  given,    and   proceeded  to 
read  the  same  to  the  jury  until  he  had  read  the  same  about  half  through, 
when  the  court  stopped,  and   remarked  in   the  presence  of  the  jury,  in 
effect,  that  an  instruction  often  impressed  one  differently  when  read  aloud, 
and   thereupon    suspended    the  further  reading  of  said    instruction,  and 
marked  it  "  Refused,"  and  refused  to  give  said  instruction  to  the  jury  in 
the  presence  of  the  jury. 

(To  which  action   of  the  court,  and   each  arjd  every  part  thereof, 
said  defendant,  Louis  Lingg,  then  and  there  excepted.) 

34  Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  of  the  instructions  in  behalf  of 
the  defendants,  which  were   read   after  the   instruction  on  behalf  of  the 
people,  the  court  of  its  own   motion  gave  to   the  jury  the  following  in- 
struction : 

35  The  statute  requires  that  instructions  by  the  court  to  the  jury  shall  be 
in  writing,  and  only  relate  to  the  law  of  the  case. 

The  practice  under  the  statute  is  that  the  counsel  prepare  on  each  side 
a  set  of  instructions  and  present  them  to  the  court,  and  if  approved  to 
be  read  by  the  court  as  the  law  of  the  case.  It  may  happen,  by  reason 
of  the  great  number  presented  and  the  hurry  and  confusion  of  passing 


(24) 

VOL.  O. 

on  them  in  the  midst  of  the  trial,  with  a  large  audience  to  keep  in  order, 
that  there  may  be  some  apparent  inconsistency  in  them,  but  if  they  are 
carefully  scrutinized  such  inconsistencies  will  probably  disappear.  In 
any  event,  however,  the  gist  and  pith  of  all  is  that  if  advice  and  encour- 
agement to  murder  was  given,  if  murder  was  done  in  pursuance  of  and 
materially  induced  by  such  advice  and  encouragement,  then  those  who 
gave  such  advice  and  encouragement  are  guilty  of  the  murder.  Unless  the 
^  evidence,  either  direct  or  circumstantial,  or  both,  proves  the  guilt  of  one  or 
more  of  the  defendants  upon  this  principle  so  fully  that  there  is  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  of  it,  your  duty  to  them  requires  you  to  acquit  them.  If 
it  does  so  prove,  then  your  duty  to  the  state  requires  you  to  convict  who- 
ever is  so  proved  guilty.  The  case  of  each  defendant  should  be  consid- 
ered with  the  same  care  and  scrutiny  as  if  he  alone  were  on  trial.  If  a 
conspiracy,  having  violence  and  murder  as  its  object,  is  fully  proved,  then 
the  acts  and  declarations  of  each  conspirator  in  furtherance  of  the  con- 
spiracy are  the  acts  and  declarations  of  each  one  of  the  conspirators.  But 
the  declarations  of  any  conspirator  before  or  after  the  4th  of  May  which  are 
merely  narrative  as  to  what  had  been  or  would  be  done,  and  not  made  to 
aid  in  carrying  into  effect  the  object  of  the  conspiracy,  are  only  evidence 
against  the  one  who  made  them. 

What  are  the  facts  and  what  is  the  truth  the  jury  must  determine  from 
the  evidence  and  from  that  alone.  If  there  are  any  unguarded  expres- 
sions in  any  of  the  instructions  which  seem  to  assume  the  existence  of 
any  facts,  or  to  be  any  intimations  as  to  what  is  proved,  all  such  expres- 
sions must  be  disregarded,  and  the  evidence  only  looked  to  to  deter- 
mine the  facts. 

36  (To  the  giving  of  which  instruction  the  defendants  excepted.) 
The  following  was  the  instruction  given  as  to  the  form  of  the  verdict: 

37  If  all  of  the  defendants  are  found  guilty  the  form  of  the  verdict  will  be: 
We  the  jury  find  the  defendants  guilty  of  murder  in  manner  and  form 

as  charged  in  the  indictment,  and  fix  the  penalty 

If  all  are  found  not  guilty  the  form  of  the  verdict  will  be: 

We  the  jury  find  the  defendants  not  guilty. 

If  part  of  the  defendants  are  found  guilty  and  part  not  guilty  the  form 
of  the  verdict  will  be: 

We  the  jury  find  the  defendant  or  defendants  (naming  him  or  them) 
not  guilty;  we  find  the  defendant  or  defendants  (naming  him  or  them) 
guilty  of  murder  in  manner  and  form  as  charged  in  the  indictment,  and 
fix  the  penalty 


(25) 
VOL.  0. 

38  (To  the  giving  of  which  instructions   the  defendants  excepted.) 
The  defendants  moved  the  court  to  give  an  instruction  with  reference 

to  the  right  of  the  jury  to  find  a  verdict  of  manslaughter  under  the  in- 
dictment. The  court  stated  that  if  the  defendants  desired  such  an  in- 
struction given,  they  could  prepare  the  same  and  submit  it  to  the  court. 
The  jury  was  then  directed  to  retire. 

And  afterwards  the  court  sent  for  the  jury  and  gave  the  following  in- 
structions, submitted  by  counsel  for  defendants: 

39  Manslaughter  is  the  unlawful   killing  of  a  human  being  without  mal- 
ice or  deliberation.'    Punishment.     Under  an  indictment   for    murder,  the 
accused  may  be  found  guilty  of  manslaughter. 

43  .         On  October  i,  1886,  the  arguments  on  the  motion  for  new  trial  began. 

The  grounds  of  defendants' motion  for  new  trial  were  read,  showing  that 
the  verdict  is  contrary  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  the  case;  that  the 
court  erred  in  giving  the  several  instructions  on  behalf  of  the  people,  and 
in  refusing  and  modifying  certain  instructions  asked  to  be  given  by  de- 
fendants; in  admitting  incompetent  testimony  for  the  people  and  excluding 
testimony  for  the  defendants;  that  the  jury  was  not  impartial;  misconduct 
of  the  officers  summoning  the  jurors  under  special  venires;  there  is  newly 

44  discovered  evidence;  the  closing  argument  of  the   state's  attorney  was 
improper;  the  court  erred   in   its  ruling  in  regard  to  the  competency  of 
jurors,  in  overruling  the  motion   of  defendants   Spies,  Schwab,  Fielden 
and  Neebe  for  a  separate  trial. 

47  The  defendants  then  moved  the  court  for  leave  to  examine  Otis  S. 

Favor  in  open  court  touching  certain  matters  referred  to  in  affidavit  of 
defendants  and  of  E.  A.  Stevens,  which  were  read. 

49  The  affidavit  of  defendants  shows  upon  information  and  belief  the  fol- 

lowing: the  special  bailiff,  Henry  L.  Ryce,  with  the  avowed  intention  of 
making  sure  of  the  conviction  of  affiants,  selected  the  parties  summoned 
by  him  for  jury  service  in  this  case  from  men  having  prejudices  in  the 
case  and  fixed  beliefs  as  to  the  guilt  of  affiants;  that  consequently  affiants 
were  compelled  to  accept  such  men  as  jurors  to  try  the  case;  the  above 
facts  can  be  shown  by  the  testimony  of  Otis  S.  Favor,  to  whom  Ryce 
made  statements  to  the  effect  that  he  was  managing  the  case  against 
affiants  and  knew  what  he  was  about,  that  they  would  hang  as  certain  as 
death;  that  he  was  summoning  as  jurors  men  whom  affiants  would  be 
compelled  to  challenge,  whereby  their  challenges  would  be  exhausted, 
and  they  would  be  compelled  to  accept  as  jurors  such  men  as  were  satis- 
factory to  the  prosecution.  Affiants  received  information  of  premises 


(26) 
VOL.  O. 

long  after  the  verdict  and  only  within  a  few  days  past;  said  Favor  refuses 
to  make  anv  affidavit  substantiating  above  on  account  of  the  popular 
prejudice  against  defendants,  but  would  testify  to  the  matters  set  forth,  if 

50  required  as  a  witness   to  do  so;  the  above  remarks  of  Ryce  were  made 
almost  immediately  upon  the  appearance,  in  one  of  the  leading  papers  in 
the  city,  of  an  editorial,  advising,  substantially,  such  a  course  in  the  selec- 
tion of  jurors.     Affiants  therefore  ask  that  Otis  S.  Favor  be  required  to 
testify  herein  touching  above  matters,  and  that   such   testimony  when 
given,  may  be  considered  in  support  of  the  motion  for  new  trial. 

51  Affidavit  of  E.  A.  Stevens  shows:  he  is  well  acquainted  with  Otis  S. 
Favor,  a  citizen  of  this   state,  and   merchant  of  standing   and  repute  in 
Chicago;  said  Favor  is  intimately  acquainted  with  Henry  L.  Ryce,  who 
acted  as  special  bailiff  in  summoning  jurors  in  this  case;  affiant  has  heard 
Favor  state  that  Ryce  said  to  Favor  and  others  in  his  presence,  that  he 
(Ryce)  was  managing  this  case  and  knew  what  he  was  about;  that  the 
defendants  are  going  to  be  hanged   as  certain  as  death;  he  was  calling 
such  men  as  the  defense  would  have  to  peremptorily  challenge  and  waste 
their  time  and  challenges;  then  they  would   have  to  take  such   men  as 
the   prosecution   wants.     Affiant  requested  Favor  to  make  an  affidavit 
regarding  above  statements  of  Ryce,  but  Favor  refused  to  do  so,  stating 
that  he  would  take  no  action  in  favor  of  the   defendants,   but  if  called  as 
a  witness   and   compelled  to  testify,  might  state  the  fact  as  to  what  was 
said  by  Ryce  substantially  as  above  stated. 

53  In  addition,  Mr.  Black  states,  that  in  a  personal  conversation  with  said 

Favor  the  same  did  not  deny  the  alleged  statements  by  him,  but  declared 
he  would  not  speak  of  the  matter,  unless  required  to  do  so  under  some 
order  of  court;  that  Mr.  Favor's  place  of  business  is  close  by,  and 

54-60  further  moves  the  court  to  issue  a  subpoena  for  Mr.  Favor's  attendance, 
who  was  in  town  and  whose  place  of  business  was  within  a  quarter  of  a 
mile,  so  that  the  proceedings  would  not  be  delayed.  After  argument  the 
court  overrules  the  motion,  giving  as  reasons  that  the  arguments  on 
the  motion  for  new  trial  had  been  peremptorily  set  for  this  day,  and  that 
even  if  Favor  was  here,  it  would  be  of  no  consequence,  as  it  was  well 
known  to  everybody  present  at  the  trial  that  the  last  fifty  of  defendants' 
peremptory  challenges  were  exhausted  simply  for  the  purpose  of  exhaust- 

61         ing  them.     The  defendants  excepted  to  the  ruling  of  the  court. 

64, 65  Affidavit  of  defendants  showing  that  since  the  trial  of  this  case  there  has 
come  to  their  knowledge  certain  newly-discovered  evidence  of  material 
matters  which  could  be  proved  on  a  new  trial  and  are  contained  in  the 


(27) 

VOL.  O. 

affidavits  filed;  also  that  certain  expressions  of  opinion,  feeling  or  purpose 
of  certain  jurors  set  up  in  affidavits,  showing  said  jurors  to  have  been  dis- 
qualified, have  come  to  their  knowledge  since  they  had  been  respectively 
accepted. 

66  Affidavit  of  Thomas  J.  Morgan   shows  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  Illinois 

and  of  the  United  States,  lives  at  Woodlawn  Park,  and  well  knows  T. 
E.  Denker,  of  the  same  place,  who  was  one  of  the  jurors  who  tried  this 
case;  that  on  May  6,  1886,  when  affiant  stated  in  a  conversation  with 
his  son  in  reference  to  a  picture  of  Spies  in  a  Chicago  paper,  that  said 
picture  did  not  look  more  like  Spies  than  it  did  like  affiant,  said  Denker 
stated,  with  much  feeling  and  emphasis,  in  effect  as  follows:  It  don't 
make  any  difference  whether  it  is  like  him  or  not — he  and  the  whole 
damned  crowd  ought  to  be  hung— referring  to  some  of  the  defendants 
then  under  arrest  for  alleged  responsibility  for  the  so-called  Haymarket 

66,  67  massacre.     Affiant  states  that  he  is  not  and  never  has  been  an  anarchist. 
Affidavit  of  Thomas  S.  Morgan  shows  that  affiant  is  a  son  of  Thomas 
J.  Morgan,  corroborates  the  above  affidavit  of  the  latter  in  every  material 
point,  and  states  that  affiant  is  not  an  anarchist,  nor  a  member  of  any  so- 
cialistic, communistic  or  anarchistic  group  or  society. 

68  Affidavit  of  Michael    Cull    shows    that  he  has  resided  at  Evanston, 

Cook  county,  for  twenty-four  years;  is  a  married  man  and  lives  with  his 
family;  he  is  well  acquainted  since  fifteen  years  with  G.  W.  Adams,  of 
Evanston,  who  was  one  of  the  jurors  in  this  case;  that  shortly  after  the 
Haymarket  affair  said  Adams,  affiant  and  a  number  of  others  had  a 
conversation  about  that  affair  in  the  vicinity  of  Adams'  paint  shop;  that 
in  that  conversation  affiant  stated  that  the  police  had  no  right  to  interfere 
with  the  Haymarket  meeting;  if  the  police  had  let  them  alone  they  would 
have  gone  home  in  a  little  while,  to  which  said  Adams  replied  that  the 
police  ought  to  have  shot  them  all  down;  that  they  (meaning  defendants) 
had  no  right  in  this  country,  and  if  he  (Adams)  were  on  the  jury  he 
would  hang  all  "  the  damned  buggers." 

Sworn  to,  on  September  30,  1886,  before  M.  Salomon,  notary  public, 
and  res  worn  to  on  October  i,  1886,  before  John  Stephens,  clerk  of  the 
Criminal  court  of  Cook  county. 

71  The  affidavit  of  Albert  P.  Love    shows   that    he  is  a  resident  of  La 

Grange,  Cook  county,  owns  his  home  there,  is  a  painter  and  has  known 
Harry  L.  Gilmer  since  ten  years;  that  on  May  4,  1886,  shortly  after  8 
p.  M.,  he  and  Orrin  S.  Blossom,  a  painter,  met  said  Gilmer  on  Halsted 
street,  somewhere  between  Madison  and  Van  Buren  streets;  the  three 


VOL.  O. 

went  to  a  saloon  on  the  north-east  corner  of  Halsted  and  Van  Buren 
streets,  where  they  and  another  painter,  Phil  Hunt,  drank  and  remained 
in  conversation  until  a  little  after  9  P.  M.,  when  affiant  left  to  take  the  9:20 
p.  M.  train  for  home,  while  Gilmer,  Blossom  and  Hunt  remained  there; 
the  next  morning  affiant  saw  an  account  of  the  bomb-throwing  on  the 
Haymarket.  Affiant  has  been  a  resident  of  Cook  county  for  about 
twenty  years  past,  having  come  to  Chicago  immediately  after  being 
mustered  out  of  the  United  States  service,  where  he  was  a  private 

72  soldier  in  the  29th  Regt.  Indiana  Volunteers.     Affiant  never  communi- 
cated the  above  facts  to  anybody  until  after  the  verdict  in    this    case;  is 
ready  to  testify  to  them,  if  a  new  trial  should  be  granted;  is  not  a  social- 
ist, anarchist,  or  communist,  and  has  no  relation  to  any  of  the  defendants. 

Affidavit  of  Orrin  S.  Blossom  shows  that  he  has  known  Albert  P. 
Love  since  eight  or  ten  years,  is  a  painter  and  remembers  being  with 
said  Love,  one  night  early  in  May,  1886,  on  the  west  side,  and  at  some 
place  on  Halsted  street,  between  Madison  and  Van  Buren;  a  tall,  spare 
man,,  a  painter,  joined  them ;  the  three  went  into  a  saloon  at  the  north-east 
corner  of  Halsted  and  Van  Buren  streets,  about  8  p.  M.,  and  remained 
there  some  considerable  time  talking.  Affiant  did  not  at  the  time  know 
the  name  of  the  tall  painter,  but  said  Love  told  him  it  was  Harry  L. 
Gilmer;  the  man  was  considerable  over  six  feet  high,  light  complexioned, 
spare  and  raw-boned.  In  the  saloon  they  were  joined  by  another  painter, 
who  was  called  Hunt  by  Love.  About  9  P.  M.  Love  left  the  saloon, 
while  affiant,  Gilmer  and  Hunt  remained  there  drinking  and  talking 

73  until  about  half-past  10.      Affiant  has  lived  in  Chicago  since   about  ten 
years;  is  a  boss  painter  since  about  four   years;  is  not  a  socialist,  anar- 
chist, or  communist;  has  no  relation  with    any  of  defendants;  has  never 
detailed  the  above  facts  until  since  the  verdict  in  this  case;  that  Love  is 
a  man  of  property  and  of  good  standing  and  repute  among  his   friends, 
and  the  above   occasion  was    the    only  one,  when    affiant  was  with    said 
Love  at  or  near  that  date. 

81  Affidavit  of  John   Philip  Deluse,  dated  August  24,  1886,  shows  that 

he  lives  in  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  and  keeps  a  saloon  there;  that  he  is  no 
socialist,  anarchist  or  communist,  belongs  to  no  labor  organization  and  is 
not  in  sympathy  with  the  Chicago  anarchists  or  any  other;  that  on  a  cer- 
tain day  in  May,  1866,  a  man  of  medium  size,  about  five  feet  and  two  to 
four  inches  high,  who  had  a  mustache,  wore  a  dark  suit  and  carried  a 
small  satchel  about  one  and  one-half  feet  long,  entered  the  saloon,  took  a 
drink  and  asked  about  the  labor  movement  in  Indianapolis.  Affiant  told 


(29) 
VOL.  O 

him  that  everything  was  quiet  there.  The  stranger  then  said:  "  I  come 
from  New  York  and  I  guess  I  will  go  to  Chicago,  you  will  hear  of  some 
trouble  there  very  soon  ";  pointing  to  his  satchel,  he  continued:  "  I  have 
got  something  in  here  that  will  work,  you  will  hear  of  it."  Leaving  the 
saloon,  he  turned  again  under  the  door  and  said  once  more:  "You  will 
hear  of  it  soon."  A  day  or  two  afterwards  the  news  came  of  the  Hay- 
market  bomb-throwing.  Affiant  immediately  thought  of  that  stranger 
and  spoke  to  several  persons  about  it,  among  them  Mr.  Oscar  Sputh,  a 
teacher  of  gymnastics,  and  they  brought  the  stranger  and  his  satchel  in 
their  minds  together  with  the  bomb-throwing.  The  verdict  rendered  in 
this  case  was  discussed  last  Saturday  by  a  number  of  guests  in  my 
saloon,  when  Mr.  Sputh  related  the  story  of  the  stranger  with  his 
satchel  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Jacob  L.  Bieler  and  others. 

82  Affidavit  of  Jacob  L.  Bieler  confirms  the   statement  in  foregoing  affi- 

davit in  regard  to  the  Saturday  conversation. 

Affidavit  of  Oscar  Sputh  confirms  all  the  statements  relating  to  him 
in  the  above  affidavit  of  Deluse,  and  states  that  Deluse  told  him  of  the 
stranger  and  his  peculiar  expression  on  May  5,  1886. 

84  Affidavit  of  Sigmund  Zeisler  shows  that  James  H.  Cole,  who  was  one 

of  the  jurors  who  tried  this  case,  said  to  affiant,  in  substance:  "  We 
jurors  could  hardly  make  a  mistake  as  to  what  the  evidence  was.  When 
the  taking  of  evidence  commenced,  I  myself  suggested  to  the  other 
jurors,  that  this  was  probably  going  to  be  a  long  and  tedious  trial  and 
we  all  ought  to  take  notes  of  the  evidence  as  it  would  be  introduced. 
You  saw  that  proposition  was  carried  out;  every  one  of  us  had  a  full 
synopsis  of  the  important  points  of  the  evidence.  No,  we  all  knew 
what  the  evidence  was,  before  the  lawyers  commenced  their  arguments." 
Affiant  further  says  that  he  observed  the  jurors  during  the  entire  trial 
and  saw  that  most  of  them  were  almost  incessantly  writing  in  little  note 
books,  while  evidence  was  introduced. 

86  From  the  affidavit  of  William  P.  Black,  read  to  the  court  on   motion 
for  the  new  trial,  it  appears  that  the  State's  Attorney,  Julius  S.  Grinnell, 
in  addressing  the  jury,  made  use   of  the   following   language:    "In  this 

87  temple  of  justice,  founded  upon  justice,  to  compare  loathsome  murderers 
to  Christ!     Has  the  case  for  the  defense  descended  so  low,  so  mean,  that 
he,  who  was  for  peace,  shall  be  compared  to  these  wretches  here!     Be- 
sides, a  comparison  with  Christ,  the    man  who   was  for  peace,  the  com- 
parison of  these  men  with  Victor  Hugo,  is  another  cruel  thrust  at  liberty 
itself.     Victor  Hugo,  a  pure  man,  who  never  counseled  war  of  this  kind, 


(3°) 

VOL.  O. 

and  who  was  in  France  the  exponent  of  republicanism,  who  desired  to 
have  there  what  we  have  here — Victor  Hugo,  compared  with  assassins! 
The  gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  would  allow  you  to  believe,  although 
they  have  no  confidence  in  the  words  they  utter,  for  it  is  mere  rhetoric 
and  talk  for  effect,  and  to  save  a  possible  doubt  for  a  lot  of  wretches, 
the  comparison  is  made  of  the  defendants  with  Victor  Hugo.  His 
writings  are  in  evidence  here,  some  of  them.  Think  of  that  for  an  ad- 
ditional comparison,  and  for  what  purpose?  To  save  these  men,  not 
from  punishment,  for  all  the  counsel  admit  in  their  arguments  that  they 
should  be  punished — to  save  them  from  death.  As  I  said,  there  is  only 
a  step  from  republicanism  to  anarchy.  Let  us  never  take,  that  step. 
Gentlemen,  the  great  responsibility  that  has  devolved  on  you  in  this  case, 
is  greater  than  any  jury  in  the  history  of  the  world  ever  undertook. 
88  This  is  no  slight  or  mean  duty  that  you  are  called  upon  to  perform. 
You  are  to  say  whether  that  step  shall  be  taken." 

"  One  other  suggestion  I  have  to  make  to  you  in  that  connection,  is 
this:  You  have  been  trying  a  murder  case  in  which  the  defendants  are 
charged  with  the  murder  of  Mathias  J.  Degan.  He  was  one  of  the 
officers  killed  by  the  bomb  at  the  Haymarket  riot.  You  have  also,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  been  trying  these  defendants  for  the  murder  of  seven 
officers;  because  where  the  act  of  any  individual  or  any  number  of  indi- 
viduals causes  the  murder  of  one  or  two,  three  or  four,  or  seven  indivi- 
duals, the  trial  of  one  is  the  trial  of  all.  In  other  words,  if  you  should 
see  fit  to  acquit  the  defendants  of  the  charge  under  this  indictment,  they 
never  could  be  tried  again." 

"  The  responsibility,  gentlemen,  is  still  greater  with  you,  for  a  reason 
which  I  will  state  to  you.  It  has  been  frequently  said  to  you  that  you 
are  trying  these  men  for  the  murder  of  Mathias  J.  Degan.  That  is  true, 
technically;  but  really  and  actually  you  are  trying  the  eight  men  for  the 
murder  of  the  seven  officers,  as  well  as  for  the  injury  to  these  sixty  others; 
and  that  is  why  all  the  proof  that  you  have  heard  has  been  introduced. 
They  complain  of  that  proof,  too.  I  will  suggest  another  proposition  to 
you;  if  you  should  in  this  case  concede  that  there  was  a  reasonable  doubt 
as  to  the  guilt  of  these  men  and  acquit  them,  that  is  the  end.  There  is 
no  appeal  by  the  State  of  Illinois,  Or  if,  in  the  trial  of  this  case,  you 
should  conclude  that  the  defendants  are  guilty  from  the  proof  in  this  case 
and  under  the  instructions  of  the  court,  you  then  in  rendering  your  ver- 
dict, would  do  what  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  from  the  numerous 
exceptions  they  have  taken,  expect  you  to  do — find  the  defendants  guilty, 


(3O 

VOL.  0. 

they  can  appeal.  If  they  don't  like  your  verdict  they  can  ask  this  court 
to  set  it  aside,  or  the  Supreme  court  of  the  state  to  review  your  judg- 
ment. The  state  can  never  appeal.  You  remember  Mr.  Ingham's 

89  analysis  of  the  foolish  conduct  of  a  criminal — it  was  admirable  and  un- 
answerable.    And,  in  that  connection,  I  would  say  to  you,  not  only  out 
of  compliment  to  Mr.  Ingham,  but  out  of  compliment  to  my  profession, 
Mr.   Ingham's  argument,  gentlemen,  stands  before  you  untouched;  and 
as  one  of  the  counsel  said  to  me  in  the  hall,  his  argument  was  unanswer- 
able, and  therefore  they  would  not  undertake  it." 

(Objected  to  by  Captain  Black.) 

Mr.  GRINNELL,  (continuing):  "I  am  only  giving  the  compliment  to 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Ingham,  which  it  deserves.  The  fact  remains,  they 
have  not  answered  it." 

On  the  subject  of  prejudice,  he  said:  "Prejudice!  Men,  organized 
assassins,  can  preach  murder  in  our  city  for  years,  and  you  deliberately 
under  your  oaths  hear  the  proof  and  then  say  that  you  have  no  preju- 
dice!" 

Objected  to  by  Capt.  BLACK,  who  said."  I  wish  to  take  an  exception  to 
the  language  of  the  state's  attorney.  I  should  not  have  interrupted  him, 
but  the  frequent  repetition  makes  it  a  decided  offense  against  propriety, 
that  he  should  refer  to  these  defendants,  whose  guilt  is  the  question 
under  consideration,  as  assassins." 

"  Save  your  exception,"  replied  Judge  Gary. 

Mr.  GRINNELL  (continuing):  "  Before  I  proceed  further  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  case,  that  may  be  in  some  measure  personal  to  the  prose- 
cution, not  in  the  way  of  extenuating — in  the  way  of  apology.  We 
stand  here,  gentlemen,  as  I  told  you  yesterday,  already  with  our  verdict 
in  our  favor;  I  mean  in  favor  of  the  prosecution  as  to  the  conduct  of  this 
case." 

90  Capt.  BLACK:     "  If  the  court  please,  I  desire  to  note  an  exception  to 
that  statement  by  the  state's  attorney." 

The  COURT:     "  Save  the  point." 

Mr.  GRINNELL  (continuing) :  "  Let  me  give  you  a  little  plain  history. 
This  case  has  engaged  my  personal  attention,  gentlemen,  since  the  morn- 
ing of  May  5th,  at  7  o'clock.  It  has  been  an  engrossing  attention,  ab- 
sorbing. It  was  proper  that  it  should.  Great  interests  were  at  stake — 
the  law  itself  was  on  trial.  Government  was  on  trial.  A  murder  had 
been  committed.  The  question  was,  ' Who  was  responsible?'  Gilmer 
told  us  the  story  on  the  5th  or  the  6th  or  the  7th,  I  will  not  be  sure  about 


(32) 

VOL.  O. 

the  date,  and  has  told  us  all  the  time  the  same.  Remember  this  fact, 
gentlemen,  that  on  the  first  inception  of  this  business,  we  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  conspiracy." 

(Defendants  object;  the  court  overrules  the  objection,  and  defendants 
except.) 

91  "  When  we  had  Spies  under  arrest,  I  confess  to  you  then,  after  it  was 
developed   that  a  conspiracy  existed,  I   confessed  this  weakness— that  I 
did  not  suppose  that  a  man  living  in  our  community  would  enter  into  a 
conspiracy  so  hellish  and  damnable  as  the  proof  showed,  and  our  investi- 
gations subsequently    showed,  he  had  entered  into;  therefore,  notwith- 
standing Gilmer's  statements  to  us  so  frequently,  he  was  not  shown  and 
not  identified.     My  associates  found  fault   with  me  in  the  office  imme- 
diately afterwards  for  not  clearly  defining  it.'? 

(Defendants  except.) 

92  "  Don't  try,  gentlemen,  to  shirk  the  issues.     Law  is  on   trial,  anarchy 
is  on  trial;  the  defendants  are  on  trial  for  treason  and  murder." 

(Defendants  object;  the  court  overrules   the  objection,  and  defend- 
ants except.) 

"  Treason,  gentlemen,  can  only  be  committed  by  a  citizen.  You  and 
I  can  commit  treason.  None  of  these  defendants,  except  Parsons  and 
Neebe,  according  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Foster,  can  commit  treason 
under  the  laws.  Why?  Because  there  are  none  of  them  citizens.  If 
they  had  been  citizens,  you  (looking  at  counsel  for  defense)  would  have 
proved  it,  or  else  there  was  more  design  in  it  than  that.  Or  you  failed  to 
prove  it,  because,  thinking  that  there  might  be  some  possible  chance  or 
technicality  in  the  upper  court,  on  the  proofs  produced  here,  and  the 
law,  that  they  might  be  indicted  for  treason,-  if  we  prove  the  fact  that 
they  were  citizens,  because  an  overt  act  has  been  committed.  That  is 
why  they  proved  a  case  half  at  a  time.  First  prove  no  conspiracy,  and 
then  finding  the  difficulty  to  become  great,  assert  before  you  that  they 
are  citizens.  I  don't  know  whether  Neebe  was  born  in  Philadelphia  or 
not;  neither  does  Foster.  But,  gentlemen,  Capt.  Black  suggested  that 
they  are  not  on  trial  for  treason.  That  is  true.  The  penalty  for  treason 
is  death,  and  it  is  death  in  treason  whether  the  individual  committing  a 
treason,  kills  a  man  or  not.  A  man  can  commit  the  overt  act  of  treason 
and  injure  no  individual,  and  it  is  then  death.  Is  the  offense  any  the  less 
because  seven  men  are  dead  and  because  sixty  others,  some  of  them 
maimed  for  life?  I  lhank  the  gentleman  for  making  the  suggestion 

93  about  treason.     But  not  content,  these  revolutionists,  these  traitors,  these 


(33) 

VOL.  O. 

men  who  have  committed  treason,  I  thank  again  the  gentlemen  for  the 
word,  these  men  who  have  committed  treason,  are  not  content  with  con- 
fining their  power  and  influence  to  the  small  limits  of  Cook  county,  but 
Spies  goes  to  Grand  Rapids,  and  there  gives  utterance  to  these  same 
treasonable  sentences;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  other  proselytes  of  the 
humanitarian  crowd  were  af  other  places  in  the  country  doing  the  same 
thing.  Another  thing,  they  had  prepared  before  the  McCormick  meet- 
ing for  this  difficulty.  How?  At  Emma  street,  on  Sunday,  was  a  con- 
spiracy meeting  of  these  infamous  scoundrels,  seeking  our  lives,  seeking 
the  destruction  of  the  law.  For  God's  sake,  has  the  defense  descended 
so  low,  that  men  in  their  graves  must  be  brought  up  to  save  the  lives  of 
wretches  who  have  attempted  to  destroy  the  law?  Weekly  since  the 
4th  of  May  have  bombs  been  found  scattered  in  the  north  and  west  and 
south-west  part  of  the  city,  and  they  will  continue  to  be  found." 

(Defendants  object;  the  court  overrules  the  objection,  and  defendants 

except.) 

"  As  Wirt  Dexter  said  in  his  speech  about  that  matter,  in  praising  the 
act  of  the  police  in  that  transaction:  ' How  noble  was?  their  conduct;  in- 
94  stead  of  fleeing  and  running,  they  said:  '  Fall  in,  boys,'  and  the  town  was 
saved.  I  would  like  to  take  you  all  over  to  the  Haymarket  that  night, 
and  with  you,  with  tears  in  your  eyes,  see  the  dead  and  mingle  with  the 
dying.' 

"  Another  thing:  One  of  the  officers  swears  that  he  was  wounded  in 
the  knee.  I  was  not  looking  at  Capt.  Black  when  he  motioned  to  you 
the  place  where  the  wound  occurred.  For  the  purpose  of  correcting 
mvself  and  making  no  mistake  about  it,  because  the  testimony  of  an 
officer  or  any  witness  who  put  his  finger  on  the  spot,  cannot  get  into  the 
record,  and  I  found  that  by  looking  at  the  record  that  he  pointed  his 
finger  here  and  here.  Of  course,  there  was  no  significance  to  that.  I 
had  the  officer  come  to  my  office  and  examined  the  wound,  and  I  found 
that  the  bullet  went  in  there  (indicating)  and  came  out  above,  going 
around  opposite  the  knee-cap,  and  was  not  from  behind." 

(Defendants  object;  the  court   overrules  the  objection,  and  the  de- 
fendants except.) 

96  The  following  reply  affidavits  were  here  read  by  counsel  for  the  people, 
copies  of  which  had  not  been  furnished  beforehand  to  the  defendants: 

97  Affidavit    of  John  Carney  shows,  that    affiant   is  captain    of  police  of 
Evanston;  has  known    Michael   Cull   for  over  twenty  years;  that   said 
Cull  is  a  worthless  and   shiftless   person;  spends   for  liquor  whatever  he 


(34) 

VOL.  O. 

earns,   and    does  very  little  towards  the   support   of  his  wife   and   five 
children. 

99  Affidavit   of  Geo.  W.  Adams  shows,  he  was  one  of  the  jurors  who 
tried  this  case,  and  is  the  person  mentioned  in   Michael  Cull's  affidavit; 
that  said  Cull  is  a  worthless,  shiftless  person;  spends  for  liquor  whatever 
he  earns;  has  a  bad  reputation  in  Evanston  where  he  resides,  for  sobriety 
and   truthfulness;  affiant  never  had  any  conversation  with  Cull  or  in  his 
hearing  about  the  throwing  of  the  bomb,  the   Haymarket  affair,  or  the 

100  action  of  the   police  there,  or  the  defendants;  never  heard  said  Cull  ex- 
press the  opinion  attributed  to  him  in  his  affidavit;  affiant  never  expressed 
the  sentiment  attributed  to  him  in  Cull's  affidavit,  nor  anything  in  which 
such  sentiment  was  contained. 

Affidavit  of  Theodore  E.  Denkler  shows,  he  was  one  of  the 
jurors  who  tried  this  case  and  is  the  person  referred  to  in  the 
affidavits  of  T.  J.  and  T.  S.  Morgan;  affiant  has  known  T.  J.  Mor- 
gan for  some-  time;  that  one  morning  soon  after  the  4th  of  May, 
1886,  affiant  asked  said  Morgan  if  a  picture  of  Spies  in  the  newspapers 
was  a  correct  likeness  of  Spies,  to  which  Morgan  replied  that  it  looked 
no  more  like  Spies  than  Morgan  did;  that  affiant  remembers  no  further 
remarks  about  the  Haymarket  massacre  in  that  connection;  affiant  be- 
lieved at  the  time  that  Morgan  was  in  sympathy  with  Spies  and  ex- 
pressed no  opinion,  in  order  not  to  injure  his  feeling  unnecessarily,  al- 
though affiant  says  that  previous  to  his  being  accepted  as  a  juror  he  had 
an  opinion  and  had  expressed  it.  Affiant  is  informed  and  believes  that 
the  son  of  said  Morgan  mentioned  is  about  thirteen  years  of  age. 

101  Affidavit    of  Albert    P.    Love    shows,  that    he   is    the    same    person 
who    made    a    statement    purporting   to    be  an    affidavit    in    this    case 
in    the    morning    of    September    29,    1886,    in    the    office    of    Salomon 
&    Zeisler;    after    signing    the    statement,    a    man     asked     him    if    the 
signature  was  affiant's;  affiant  said  yes,  and  the  man  said  "  all  right"; 
no   oath  was   administered   to   affiant.     A   number  of  statements  in  said 
pretended  affidavit  are  not  true.      Affiant   never  knew  Harry  L.  Gilmer; 
never  saw  him,  to   his    knowledge;  did  not  see  him  on  the  night  of  May 
4,  1886.     Affiant  was  not  in  the   city  of  Chicago  on  that  day  after  6:20 
o'clock    P.  M.,  and  was    not,  on    that    night,  in    company  with    Orrin    S. 
Blossom  at  any  saloon  in  Chicago,  or  at  any  other  place.     Affiant  spent 
one  evening  with  said  Blossom  visiting  different  saloons,  but  that  was,  as 

102  affiant  recollects,  on    May  5lh,  while  Blossom   says  he   thinks  it  was  on 
May  ist;  but  affiant   has  no  recollection   of  having  seen  Gilmer  on  that 


(35) 

VOL.  0. 

night,  or  any  person  answering  his  description.  Affiant  knows  one 
Hunt,  but  has  not  seen  him  for  five  years  last  past.  Affiant  made  said 
statement  because  he  had  been  promised  he  should  be  paid  therefor  im- 
mediately upon  its  execution,  and  believed  he  could  contradict  it  before  it 

• 

was  used  in  court.  After  having  acknowledged  his  signature,  one  Lewis 
L.  Smith,  who  was  present  at  the  time  in  the  office  of  Salomon  &  Zeisler 
and  with  whom  affiant  had  conversed  about  the  making  of  such  state- 
ment prior  thereto,  was  given  a  check  by  Mr.  Zeisler  for  ninety-one  dol- 
lars. Affiant,  Smith  and  Blossom  who  also  made  a  statement  at  the 
time,  then  had  the  check  cashed  and  affiant  received  from  Smith  thirty 
dollars,  Blossom  received  the  same,  and  one  dollar  was  used  in  the  pur- 
chase of  cigars.  This  affidavit  is  made  voluntarily  by  affiant  and  he  has 
told  Messrs.  Black,  Salomon  and  Zeisler  that  the  former  statement  signed 
by  him  was  not  true. 

105  Affidavit  of  Orrin  S.  Blossom  shows,  he  is  the  person  who  signed 

a  paper  purporting  to  be  an  affidavit  in  this  case.  Affiant  does 
not  know  Harry  L.  Gilmer;  never  saw  him,  to  his  knowledge; 
was  not  with  him  or  with  Albert  P.  Love  on  the  west  side,  or 
at  any  place,  on  the  night  of  May  4,  1886;  has  no  recollection  of 
meeting  a  tall,  spare  man,  a  painter,  who  answers  the  description  of  H. 
L.  Gilmer,  on  Halsted  street  between  Madison  and  Van  Buren.  Affiant 
t  was  with  Love  in  different  saloons  on  the  night  of  May  i,  1886,  until 
about  9  o'clock,  but  don't  recollect  of  meeting  Gilmer  that  night,  but  met 
many  painters  whom  he  knew,  and  among  them  some  tall  men.  Affiant 
made  the  statement  referred  to  in  Salomon  &  Zeisler's  office  on  Septem- 
ber 29,  1886;  he  was  simply  asked  if  the  signature  was  his,  but  no  oath 
was  administered  to  him.  Lewis  L.  Smith  was  present.  Salomon  told 
affiant  Smith  would  settle  with  him.  Affiant  received  thirty  dollars  from 
Smith  after  Smith  had  cashed  a  check  of  ninety-one  dollars  at  the  In- 
ternational Bank. 

126  Motion  by  defendants  to  have  a  reasonable  time  allowed  to  prepare 

and  file  reply-affidavits  as  to  material  matters  contained  in  the  counter- 
affidavits  filed  on  behalf  of  the  people  before  proceeding  further  with 
the  argument  was  overruled  by  the  court,  to  which  the  defendants  ex- 
cepted. 


ABSTRACT  OF  JURY  EXAMINATION, 


IMPANELING  OF  THE  JURY. 
VOL.  A. 

i  All  of  the  jurors   herein  were   first  sworn  in  regular  form,  to  answer 

questions  as  to  their  competency. 

William  Veney  Smith,  excused  by  consent. 
2-7  David  H.  Mason,  peremptorily  excused  by  state. 

8-12         Edward  H.  Ca.npbell,  peremptorily  excused  by  state. 

H.  F.  Chandler :  I  am  in  the  artists'  material  business  for  Thayer  &  Chand- 
ler; am  a  brother  of  the  junior  member  of  that  firm.  I  was  born  in  Chicago; 

14  am  twenty-four  years  old.     I  don't  know  any  t>f  the  defendants.     I  have 
read  and  talked  about  this  case;  was  not  present  at   the  occurrence  on 
the  night  of  May  4th.     1  would  try  to  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt 
of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  to  me  in  court  here,  regard- 
less of  everything  that  I  have  ever  read  or  heard  about  it.     I  believe  I 

15  could  do  it. 

58  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

The  first  thing  I  heard  of  the  Haymarket  trouble  were  the  reports  of 
the  guns  that  night.  I  live  nearly  a  mile  from  the  scene  of  the  occur- 
rence. Afterwards  I  read  about  it  in  the  paper,  and  have  been  reading 

59  about  it  ever  since.     I  have  formed  no  opinion  upon  the  question  of  any 
of  these  defendants'  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  murder  of  Mr.  Degan.     I 
have  a  prejudice  against  socialists  as  a  class,  but  none  but  what  would  be 
removed  if  I  heard  the  testimony. 

71  Mr.  Chandler  peremptorily  challenged  by  defendants. 

16  W.  M.  Upham:     I  am  a  manufacturer  of  leather;  live  at  337  Wash- 

17  ington  boulevard.     I  read  about  this  case  and  discussed  it  some;  I  quite 
likely  expressed  some  opinions  myself  and  heard  some  expressions.    I  do 

18  not  know  any  of  the  defendants.     I  think  I  could  determine  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  alone  presented  here  in  court, 
but  I  don't  know  as  I   could  distinguish  between   them.     I  have  a  fair 

19  business  memory. 


(80) 


(37) 

VOL.  A. 

6 1  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

I  think  I  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  some  of  these  defendants, 
upon  the  question  of  their  guilt  or  innocence,  based  upon  the  belief  of 
what  I  read  and  heard.  I  probably  expressed  that  opinion  to  others. 

63  (Challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled.) 

The  COURT:  Q.  The  question  is  whether  you  have  ever  formed  or 
expressed  any  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  one  of  these 
eight  men  of  the  murder  of  officer  Degan? 

A.  I  cannot  say  what  I  have  expressed  in  words,  but  my  opinion  was 
that  some  of  them  are  guilty. 

The  COURT:  That  is  not  any  ground  of  challenge  under  the  law. 

64  I  believed  the  statements  upon  which  I  formed  my  opinion  to  be  true 
at  the  time;  I  have  the  same  opinion  now  which  I  then  formed. 

Q.  Will  it  require  sworn  testimony  to  overcome  the  opinion  which 
you  now  have  before  you  will  be  unbiased  and  free  to  act  upon  the 
testimony? 

66  (Objected  to;  objection  sustained  and  exception.) 

67  I  have  a  prejudice  against  the  teachings  of  socialists  and  anarchists;  I  be- 
lieve their  influence  pernicious ;  I  have  no  prejudice  against  the  individuals 
which  would   in   any  way  influence  my  verdict  in   this  case.     I  think  I 
could  render  a  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence.     I  have 

68  some  prejudice  against  labor  organization  and  against  men  who  teach  the 
right  and  speak  in  favor  of  the  organization  of  laboring  men  for  their 
own  protection.     I  don't  think  this  prejudice  would  bias  my  judgment  in 

69  this  case.     I  think  I  might  get   mixed  up  a  little  in  remembering  as  to 
which  of  the  defendants  the  different  parts  of  the  evidence  apply. 

(Mr.  Upham  challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled;  exception 
by  defendants.  Mr.  Upham  challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

21-26       Henry  H.  Aldrich:  I  live  on  South  Ashland  avenue;  am  a  commission 
merchant  on  the  board  of  trade. 

4 1-47  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

I  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
some  of  the  defendants,  based  upon  the  belief  of  what  I  have  read  and 
heard. 

(Challenge  for  cause  by  defendants  overruled.) 

I  have  expressed  an  opinion  upon  the  truth  of  the  reports  which  I  heard 
about  the  transaction. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed  and  sustained.) 


VOL.  A. 

27-29  George  Norval:  I  live  at  159  So.  Greene  street,  am  keeping  a  board- 
ing house  now. 

Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state. 
30-31       Jerry  Albright:     Excused  for  cause  by  state. 
32-36       Joseph  H.  Peterson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  state. 

37-40  Sidney  H.  Warner:  I  live  at  582  West  Taylor  street,  employed  by 
the  firm  of  Warner  &  Wilbur,  in  the  commission  business;  am  a  member 
of  the  board  of  trade.  I  do  not  know  any  of  the  defendants.  I  have 
read  and  heard  a  good  deal  about  this  case  and  talked  about  it  a  little. 
I  think  I  could  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants  upon 
the  proof  presented  here  in  court,  regardless  of  everything  that  I  have 
ever  heard  about  it. 

48-50  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

I  knew  that  the  murder  of  those  policemen  at  the  Haymarket  was 
wrong.  I  did  not  form  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  of  any 
of  these  defendants.  I  don't  think  the  papers  always  get  it  right. 

52  Q.     Suppose  that  it  should  appear  in  evidence  that  the  meeting  held 
at  the  Haymarket  square  was  a   meeting  called  by  socialists   and  anar- 
chists, and  was  attended  by  them  and  others;  suppose  that  it  should  fur- 
ther appear  that  the  bomb  which  is  alleged  to  have  produced  the  death 
of  Mr.  Degan  was  thrown  by  some  one  in  sympathy  with  the  socialists 
or  anarchists.     Now,  provided  it  was  not  established  beyond  all  reason- 
able doubt  that  these  defendants  actually  threw  the  bomb,  or  that  they 
aided,  participated  in  or  advised  the  committing  of  that  wrong:     Would 
the  fact  that  they  were  socialists  or  communists  have  any  influence  upon 
your  mind  in  determining  their  innocence? 

(Question  refused  to  be  answered  by  the  court  as  calling  upon  the 

53  .  juror  to  swear  as  to  operations  of  his  mind  in  the  future.     Excep- 

tion by  defendants.) 

54  I  have  a  prejudice  against  the  class  of  socialists  and  anarchists,  from 

55  what  I  have  heard  of  their  belief.     I  don't  think  the  fact  of  their  being 
socialists  would  prejudice  me. 

57  Q.     I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  fact  that  the  defendants  affirm 

rather  than  swear,  would  in  any  way  affect  your  mind  as  to  the  credit 
which  you  would  give  to  their  testimony? 

(Objected  to;  objection  sustained,  and  exception  by  defendants.) 
Q.     I  will  ask  you  whether  it  would   in   any  way,  in  your  judgment, 


(39) 

VOL.  A. 

affect  their  testimony,  provided  it  would  appear  that  they  were  atheists  or 
were  not  believers  in  the  existence  of  a  personal  God? 

(Objected  to;  objection  sustained,  and  exception  by  defendants.) 

71  Challenge  for  cause  against  Warner  overruled,  and  exception.  Warner 
peremptorily  challenged  by  defendants. 

The  panel  of  four  jurors  tendered  to  the  defendants,  namely,  Waner, 
Chandler,  Upham  and  Aldrich,  being  exhausted  by  challenges  exercised 
by  the  defendants,  the  latter  require  the  state  to  make  another  tender  of 

72  four  jurors,  instead  of  being   required   to   tender  back  to  the  state  four 
jurors.     The  motion  was  overruled,  and  exception. 

73—78        Hiram  A.  Yarnell:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

79-82       John  F.  Vette:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

83-85       Albert  Traff :  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

86-90       Arthur  M.  Elliott:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

91-96       Merrill  K.  Sweet,  accepted   and   tendered  to  the  State  by  defendants, 

246-249  was,  upon  cross-examination,  peremptorily  challenged  by  the  state. 

97-104-163  Charles  L.  Wells:  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

106-109  Lancaster:  I  have  lived  in  Chicago  eight  years;  have  been  engaged  in 
railroading  in  different  capacities  all  that  time.  From  reading  and  hear- 
ing reports  in  regard  to  this  case,  which  I  believed  to  be  true,  I  formed 
an  opinion  in  the  case,  but  not  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence 

no  of  any  of  these  defendants.  I  have  a  prejudice  against  the  persons  who 
instigated  the  throwing  of  the  bomb;  I  have  no  prejudice  against  the  class 
of  communists  or  anarchists  or  socialists;  I  do  not  know  their  objects; 

114  Q.     Suppose  it  should  appear  in  evidence  that  the  meeting  held  at  the 

Haymarket  square  was  a  meeting  called  by  socialists  or  anarchists,  and 
was  attended  by  them  and  others;  sup.pose  that  it  should  further  appear 
that  the  bomb  which  is  alleged  to  have  produced  the  death  of  Mr.  Began 
was  thrown  by  some  one  in  sympathy  with  the  socialists  or  anarchists. 
Now,  provided  it  was  not  established  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that 
these  defendants  actually  threw  the  bomb,  or  that  they  aided,  participated 
in  or  advised  the  committing  of  that  wrong;  would  the  fact  that  they  were 
socialists  or  communists  have  any  influence  upon  your  mind  in  determin- 
ing their  innocence? 

Mr.  GRINNELL:  I  will  not  object  to  that  question. 

Question  refused  by  the  court. 
I  am  not  acquainted  with  any  of  these  defendants;  never  saw  them 

133       until  yesterday.     I  do  not  think  I  could  render  an  impartial  verdict  in 


(40) 

VOL.  A. 

this  case.     My  present  state  of  mind  is  such  that  if  I  was  called  upon  now 
I  could  not  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  in  this  case. 

The  COURT:  The  question  is  whether  you  believe  that  you  could  fairly 
and  impartially  render  a  verdict  in  the  case  in  accordance  with  the  law 
and  the  evidence?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

134  Mr.  FOSTER:  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  are  of  the  opinion  that 

from  the  opinion  which  you  now  have,  if  the  testimony  was  equally  bal- 
anced, you  would  decide  according  to  your  present  opinion? 
(Question  refused  by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 

151  Mr.  Lancaster  was  challenged  for  cause  by  the  defendants;  challenge 

152  overruled,  and  exception;  then  challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
117-124  M.  T.  Karey:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

125,  126  Martin  Newhouse:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
127-132  Fred.  Kohl:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
135-137  Henry  Keller:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
138-140  James  J.  Adams:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

141-148  William  Crowley:  I  was  born  in  Lemont;  live  there  now.  I  am  a 
farmer.  I  have  heard  and  read  something  about  the  Haymarket  trouble, 
but  formed  no  opinion  in  the  case.  I  have  some  feeling  against  the  com- 
munists, but  it  is  not  so  strong  that  I  could  not  render  a  true  verdict  in 
this  case  under  the  evidence.  I  have  some  prejudice  against  socialists, 
communists  and  anarchists.  I  would  not  give  the  same  credit  to  the  tes- 
timony of  an  anarchist  or  communist  on  the  stand  as  I  would'  to  any 
other  unimpeached  testimony. 

(Challenge  for  cause  by  defendants  overruled,  and  exception.) 
Q.     If  it  should  be  established  by  competent  evidence  that  a  meeting 
of  socialists,  anarchists  and  others  was  held  at  the  Haymarket  square  in 

149  this  city  on  May  4th,  and  that  a  bomb  was  maliciously  thrown  by  some 
one  in  sympathy  with  such  meeting,  and  in  sympathy  with 
the  principles  advocated  by  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists, 
and  that  by  reason  thereof  Matthias  J.  Degan  was  killed,  but 
if  the  evidence  introduced  upon  the  trial  fails  to  show,  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  such  bomb  was  thrown  by  these  defendants,  or 
any  of  them,  and  that  they  nor  any  of  them  either  assisted,  aided, 
abetted,  advised  or  counseled  the  throwing  of  such  bomb,  would  your 
prejudice  against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists  prevent  you  from 
rendering  an  impartial  verdict  and  acquitting  the  defendants,  or  are  you 
now  so  prejudiced  against  the  classes  to  which  I  have  referred  that  you 


VOL.  A. 

cannot  act  impartially  and  fairly  as  a  juror  in  this  case   under  the   facts 
assumed  in  the  question? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 

150  Q.     If  the  testimony  was  equally  divided  upon  the  trial  of  this  case, 

would  you   find  against  the  defendants   or  in   favor   of  the  defendants, 
because  of  their  being  socialists,  communists  or  anarchists? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 
Mr.  Crowley  was  excused  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
153-155  John  W.  Scott  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
156-162,  224  Lewellyn  Lindsey:  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
164-166  John  Kyle:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
167-169  Benoit  Bryard:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
170,  171  John  Spain:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

172  James  H.  Cole:  I  live  at  987  Lawndale  avenue;  have  lived  in  Chicago 
seven  years.  I  have  been  in  the  railroad  business,  and  I  was  book-keeper 
for  the  Continental  Insurance  Company  up  to  April   ist  last;  since  then 
I  have  not  been  engaged  in  any  business.     I   heard  and  read  about  the 

173  Hay  market  trouble;  I  did  not  believe  all  that  I  read  in  the  newspapers;  I 
don't  think  I  have  ever  formed  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  any  one  of  these  defendants.     I  have  a  prejudice  against 
all  secret  societies;  I  have  a  prejudice  against  all  organizations  that  violate 
the  law.  From  what  I  know  now  of  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists 
I  have  a  prejudice  against  them  as  a  class.  That  prejudice  is  not  so  great 

174  that  I  could  not  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  in  this  case;  my  ver- 
dict would   be  rendered  the  same   as  against  any  other  men.     I  think  I 
could  lay  aside  all  opinions  which  I  have  formed,  and  be  guided  exclus- 
ively by  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

176  The    identical    lengthy  question    which  was   asked   by  defendants  of 
William  Crowley  on  page  149,  Vol.  A,  was  asked  of  Mr.  Cole,  and  refused 
by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants. 

177  I  was  in  the  Confederate  army  from  1861  to  '65;  I  am  50  years  old  now. 

180  Q.     Is  your  bias  or  prejudice  against  an  anarchist  or  communist  such 
that  it   would  in  any  way  bias  you  against  the  testimony  of   a  witness 
who  was  a  communist  or  a  socialist? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 
Q.     I  will  ask  you  whether  your  prejudice  against  socialists,  commun- 
ists or  anarchists  is  such  that  you  would  not  give  the  same  credence  to 

181  their  testimony — everything  else  being  equal — that  you  would  to  another 
witness,  and  whether  that  is  your  opinion  now,  at  the  present  time. 

(Question  refused  by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 


VOL.  A. 

183,  184       Thomas  Ablevvhite:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
185,  187  James  B.  Thornburgh:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
188,  190  Walter  H.  Krouskup:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
191, 193  Frank  E.  Zahner:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
194,  195   Charles  F.  Hoff:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
196, 197  James  Finnigan:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

198  A.  F.  Bradley:  I  am  sanitary  inspector  in  the  employ  of  the  city  since 

six  years.  Before  that  I  was  a  letter  carrier  for  nine  years,  and  previous 
to  that  I  worked  seven  or  eight  years  at  my  trade  as  a  painter.  I  have 
read  and  heard  accounts  of  the  Haymarket  trouble;  have  not  formed  an 

200  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  of  the  accused. 

201  I  am  not  acquainted  with  any  of   the  defendants.    I  have  a  strong  prej- 
udice against  anarchists,  socialists  and  communists.     I  have  no  prejudice 
against  trade-unions.     I  don't  know  whether  the  prejudice  which  I  have 
against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists  would  prevent  piy  returning 

202  an  unprejudiced  verdict  in  this  case.    I  could  not  tell  whether  it  might  or 
not. 

Q.     Would  you  now  receive  the  testimony  from  a  witness  belonging  to 
the  organization  of  anarchists,  communists,  or  socialists   as  freely  and 
readily  as  any  other  witness  that  might  be  presented? 
(Objected  to;    objection  sustained,  and  exception.) 

The  fact  that  the  defendants  are  anarchists,  or  communists,  or  social- 
ists, would  not  bias  me  in  determining  the  question  of  their  guilt  or 
innocence. 

203  Q.     You  feel  that  you  could  lay  your  prejudice  all  to  one  side  and  be 
governed  exclusively  by  the  testimony  as  it  was  introduced  arid  the  law 
governing   the  case,  as   given  you  by   the  court?     A.     No,    I    don't 
know  about  that,  as  I  told  you  before.     I  don't  know  whether  I  could 
or  not.     I  cannot  answer  that,  because  I  don't  know. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception.) 

Q.  Would  you  think  that  you  could  disregard  the  prejudice  that  you 
have  against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists,  and  render  a  verdict 
in  this  case  under  the  testimony  and  instructions  of  the  court,  fairly  and 
impartially?  A.  I  don't  know  but  what  I  could,  I  am  not  positive 
upon  that  point. 

204  The   COURT:  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  fairly  and  impartially  de- 
termine the   guilt  or  innocence  of  the  parties  here  on  trial  by  the  evi- 
dence presented  here  and   nothing  else,  together  with  the  instructions 


(43) 

VOL.  A.      ' 

of  the  court?     A.     I  do  think    L  could.       I   feel   the  same  trying  this 
case  as  I  would  any  other  case  that  I  was  trying. 

205  (The   identical  lengthy   question   asked  by   defendants  of   William 

Crowley,  on  page  149,  Vol.  A,  was  asked  of  Mr.  Bradley,  and  re- 
fused by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 

206  Bradley  peremptorily  challenged  by  defendants. 
207-216  Richard  Fitzgerald:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants, 

217-223  R.  H.  Ashton,  accepted   and   tendered  to  the  state  by  the  defendants, 

236-241   was,  upon  cross-examination,  challenged  peremptorily  by  the  sidle. 

225-234  Herman    Beifuss,  accepted   and  tendered  to  the  state  by  the  defend- 

242-245  ants,  was,   upon   cross-examination,    peremptorily   challenged   by   the 

279  state. 

255-260  Patrick  Moss:     Peremplorily  challenged  by  ihe  state. 

261-265   Henry  Turk:     Peremptorily  challenged  by  the  state. 

266,  267  F.  L.  Porter:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

268,  269  John  L.  Clancy:     Challenged  for  cause  by  ihe  state. 

270-273  P.J.Raleigh:  I  am  clerk  for  the  Pennsylvania  Coal  Company.  I 
heard  and  read  abont  the  Haymarket  trouble.  I  have  a  pretty  well  fixed 
opinion,  and  it  will  take  very  strong  evidence  to  convince  me  lo  the  con- 
trary; I  don't  know  any  of  the  defendants. 

289-295  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

I  have  formed  a  very  decided  opinion  in  this  case;  it  will  take  a  good 
deal  of  evidence  to  overcome  the  opinion  I  have  formed  to  convince  me. 

(Challenge  for  cause  by  defendants  overruled,  and  exception.) 
I  base  the  opinion  thai  some  of  ihese  defendanls  were  inslrumental   in 
causing  the  Haymarket  occurrence  upon  the  belief  of  what  I  read  about 
it.     I  gave  it  as  my  opinion  that  what  I  had  read  was  true. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed  and  allowed.) 
274,  275  John  Murphy:     Peremptorily  challenged  by  the  state. 
276-278  Edward  E.  Dausenbach,  tendered   to  the  defendants,  was,  upon  cross- 
305-308  examination,  challenged  for  cause  by  the  defendants. 
280-284  Matthias  Schaffhausen:     Peremptorily  challenged  by  the  slate. 

285-288  Frank  Jacobson:  I  live  at  2806  Butlerfield  street;  I  am  a  watch-case 
maker  at  32  Stale  street.  I  don't  know  any  of  the  defendants.  From 
what  I  have  read  and  heard  about  the  Haymarket  trouble  I  have  formed 
some  opinion  in  the  case.  I  think  I  can  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt 
of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  here  in  court,  regardless  of 
what  I  have  read  and  heard  about  it. 


(44) 

VOL.  A. 

* 

309-312  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

I  have  read  pretty  generally  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  Haymarket 
occurrence.  From  reading  and  hearing  about  the  case  I  have  formed 
and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  these  defendants, 
which  1  still  entertain.  I  never  stated  that  I  believed  the  statements  which  I 
heard  and  read  about  the  case  to  be  correct.  I  do  now  believe  that  the 

313  statements  which  I  read  in  the   newspapers  and  heard  on  the  street,  upon 
which  I  based  my  opinion,  are  correct. 

314  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  the  court  in  its  opinion  announcing 

316  the  rule  that  the  opinion  about  the  truth,  of  the  newspaper  state- 
ments or  the  rumor  upon   which  a  person  called   as   a  juror  has 
formed  an  opinion  or  impression  must  have  been  expressed  previ- 
ous to  his  being  called  as  a  juror,  in  order  to  disqualify  him.     De- 

317  fendants  except  to  the  ruling  of  the  court.) 

319  I  have  a  prejudice  against  socialists,  communists  and   anarchists  as  a 
class. 

Q.  Now,  is  your  prejudice  such  that  it  would  influence  your  verdict 
in  this  case  under  the  evidence  that  is  introduced  upon  the  trial  and  the 
charge  of  the  court,  as  given  by  his  Honor,  the  judge? 

320  (Question  refused  by  the  court;  exception  by  defendants.) 

I  think  I  can  fairly  and  impartially  try  the  case  upon  the  evidence. 

321  Mr.  Jacobson  was  then  peremptorily  challenged  by  the  defendants. 
296-304  John  J.  Karstens:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
322-327  Paul  W.  Brooks:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
328-330  Frank  Bilderbeck:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
331,332  Edward  Einhorn:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

333—336  Moses  Marcott:  Was  accepted  by  defendants  and  tendered  to  the 
state.  Upon  cross-examination  said  Marcott  was  peremptorily  chal- 
lenger by  the  state. 

337-339  S..  H.  Little:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

340-342  Charles  H.  Tourjee:     Excused  by  agreement. 

343-345  Christian  Carlson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

346-351   Patrick  H.  Powers:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

352-355  Joseph  Emblem:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

356-360  T.  J.  McCormick:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  defendants. 

361,  362  John  O'Connell:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

363-365   Michael  Fleming:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

366-369  W.  S.  Walrus:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 


(45) 

VOL.  A. 

371-373  F.  W.  Fuller:     I  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  based  upon  the  belief  of  the  truth  of  the 
statements  read,  which  opinion  I  still  entertain. 
(Challenged  for  cause.) 

374)  375  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

I  can't  say  that  I  ever  expressed  to  anybody  that  the  newspaper  state- 
ments or  the  accounts  which  I  heard  were  true.  I  don't  know  as  any- 
body ever  contradicted  them. 

376  RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION. 

I  did  believe  those  statements  and  do  believe  them  now  to  be  true. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled  and  exception.) 

The  COURT:  Yes;  as  was  said  in  the  Connor  case,  forty  years  ago, 
every  intelligent,  right-minded  man  ought  to  lay  aside  what  they  have 
read  and  heard. 

(Defendants  object  to  the  reading  of  that  case  in  the  presence  of 
the  jury.) 

377  Mr.    FOSTER:     Q.      I    will    ask    you    whether    your    opinion    now 
is  that  the  opinion  which  you   have  formed  could  only  be   removed   by 
sworn  testimony  contradicting  it? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

378  I  do  not  believe  that  I  could  lay  aside  my  present  opinion  and  return 
an  impartial  verdict  under  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed  and  allowed.) 
380-383  Edwin  Thomas:     Challenged  for  cause  bv  defendants. 
384-386  Thomas  Scully:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

387-389  E.  F.  Shedd:  I  have  formed  and  expressed  and  still  entertain  an 
opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants, 
based  upon  the  belief  of  the  truth  of  the  statements  which  I  read  and 
heard  about  the  case.  I  have  not  expressed  the  opinion  that  I  believe 
the  substance  of  what  I  heard  or  read  in  regard  to  it.  The  doubt  of  that 
belief  was  not  questioned.  I  think  I  could  lay  aside  all  opinions  which  I 
have  and  render  an  impartial  verdict  on  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

390  Q.  Now,  then,  I  ask  you  whether  you  could  lay  aside,  in  your  judg- 

ment, your  present  opinion  and  not  be  biased  by  it  in  the  consideration 
of  the  testimony  as  it  is  introduced  upon  the  trial  of  the  case?  A.  I 
would  have  my  opinion,  my  own  opinion,  until  it  was  set  aside  by  the 
whole  testimony. 


(46) 

VOL.  A. 

Q.     Then  you  mean  to   say  that  it  would  require  some  testimony  to 
remove  the  opinion  which  you  now  have  before  it  would  be  removed? 
391        A.     Yes,  sir. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

391-396  After  full  argument  the  challenge  for  cause  was  overruled  and  the  de- 
fendants excepted. 

I   have  a   decided  predjudice  against  the  class  known   as  socialists, 
communists  or  anarchists.     I  believe  that  prejudice  would   prevent   my 
rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in  this  case,  provided  it  was  conceded  or 
397       proved  the  defendants  belonged  to  this  class. 

The  COURT:  I  know,  or  the  court  judicially,  what  are  the  objects  of 
the  communists,  socialists  and  anarchists. 

Mr.  FOSTER:     Beg  your  pardon.     It  presumes  that  the  juror  knows. 
The  COURT:     You  must  presume   that   I  know,  because  it  has  been 
decided  that  for  a  man  to  say  that  he  is  prejudiced  against  horse  thieves 
is  no  ground  for  imputing  to  him  any  misconduct  as  a  juror.     Now  you 
must  assume  that  I  Know  either  that  anarchists,  socialists  and  commun- 
ists are   a  worthy,  a  praise-worthy  class  of  people,  having  worthy  ob- 
jects, or  else  I  cannot  say  that  a  prejudice  against  them  is  wrong.     I  do 
not  know. 
398,  399  Argument  upon  this  point. 

The  COURT:  Mr.  Shedd,  with  this  prejudice  which  you  have  been 
questioned  about,  do  you  believe  you  can  fairly  and  impartially  deter- 
mine upon  the  evidence,  and  upon  that  alone,  the  question  of  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  these  defendants  of  the  crime  with  which  they  are  charged 
by  this  indictment,  without  any  reference  to  any  class  to  which  they  may 
be  assumed  or  supposed  to  belong?  A.  Yes,  sir;  putting  it  as  you  did 
then. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled  and  exception.) 

400  Mr.  FOSTER  (resuming) :     Q.     Now,  would  the  prejudice  which  you 
have   against   communists,  anarchists  and   socialists,  as  a  class,  be  in  the 
way  of  your  listening  to  the  testimony  and  rendering  an  absolutely  im- 
partial verdict,  if  it  was  conceded  or  proved  that  the  defendants  belonged 
to  that  class?     A.     Yes,  sir. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

401  The  COURT:     Do  you  mean   by  that  that  you   would    believe   you 
would  not  render  the  same  verdict  upon  the  same  evidence  if  it  was  shown 
that  they  were  of  the  same  class  referred  to,  as  you  would  if  it  were  not 
so  shown?    A.    I  think  the  mere  fact  of  their  being  communists  would 
influence  my  opinion  as  a  juror. 


(47) 

VOL.  A. 

Mr.  BLACK:  You  would  require  additional  evidence?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
*  *  *  It  would  take  less  evidence  from  them  than  from  law-abiding 
citizens,  to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty. 

The  COURT:  Well,  that  prejudice  of  yours  then,  is  based  upon  your 
understanding  that  they  are  not  law-abiding  citizens,  is  it?  A.  That  is 
what  it  is. 

(Last  question  by  the  court  objected  to,  and  exception.) 
The  COURT:     Suppose  it  should  turn  out  that  that  opinion  of  yours  is 
402       not  correct,  that  that  is  a  mistake,  that  in  fact  they  were  law-abiding  citi- 
zens, then  would  that  prejudice  have  any  effect  upon  your  verdict  or  not, 
in  your  judgment? 

(Question  objected  to  by  defendants,  and  exception.) 
A.     No,  sir;  if  it  should  turn  out  that  they  were. 

The  said  E.  F.  Shedd  was  thereupon  peremptorily  challenged  by  de- 
fendants. 
403-405  J.  K.  Misch:     I  have  formed  no  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 

406  the  defendants.     I  have  a  prejudice  against  the  class  known  as  socialists, 
communists   or   anarchists.     I  think   the  opinion  which   I  have  formed 
against  this  class  would  influence  me  in  .determining  this  case  upon  the 
law  and  the  evidence;  I  think  it  would  require  more  testimony  before  I 
could  find  them  not  guilty,  or  less   before  I  could  find  them  guilty,  than 
though  they  did  not  belong  to  this  class. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

407  CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY  THE  STATE. 

I  do  not  think  I  could  make  a  fair  juror.  I  think  I  would  be  preju- 
diced; I  think  it  would  take  more  testimony  on  account  of  it. 

The  COURT:  Is  your  prejudice  upon  this  subject  based  upon  the  idea 
that  you  suppose  this  class  are  in  favor  of  overturning  society  by  force? 

Mr.  BLACK:  I  desire  to  except  to  that  question  and  to  ask  whether 
the  state  objects  to  our  challenge,  by  its  representative. 

The  COURT:  Well,  you  can  except.  (The  question  of  the  court  being 
read  the  juror  answered):  It  is. 

408  Q.     If,  in  the  progress  of  this  case,  there   should  not  be  anything  to 
indicate  that  these  men  had  any  intention  of  overturning  society  by  force, 
you  still  think  that  you  would   have   the  same   prejudice  that  would  in- 
fluence your  verdict  in  the  case? 

(Question  by  the  court   objected   to  by  defendants,  and  exception.) 
A.     My  prejudice  would  still  remain.     I   do   not  think   I  could  give 


VOL.  A. 

these  men  a  fair  and  impartial  trial  regardless  of  all  other  circumstances 
than  what  may  be  proved  by  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

409  J.  K.  Misch,  challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

The  COURT:     I  have  not  overruled  the  challenge  for  cause. 
Mr.  BLACK:     The  record  will  speak  for  itself. 

410-411   Frederick  B.  Smith:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendrnts. 

412-414  W.  B.  Blackman:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

415-418  G.  Lindholf:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

419-426  Isaac  Freeman:     Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state  by  defendants, 

455-459  was,  upon  cross-examination,  peremptorily  challenged  by  the  state. 

435-440  August  Essenacher:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

441-446  Charles  Dyck:     .Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state. 

460-462   M.  L.  Barrett:     Accepted   and   tendered    to  defendants  by  the  state. 

VOL.  B. 

17—19  Upon  cross-examination,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

VOL.  A. 

463-470  M.  J.  Burke:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

471-477  Terrance  T.  Curry:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

478-484  William  Harrison:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

485-488  Charles  J.  Robinson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

489-493  Edwin  E.  Hart:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

494-496  F.  H.  Medbury:     Accepted   and   tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the 

state. 
VOL.  B. 

12-16       Upon  cross-examination  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

1-4  Sol.  Hamburg:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

5-7  H.  F.  Jaeger:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

8,  9.  David  L.  Streeter:     Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

10,  ii        George  H.  Hess:     Accepted   and  tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the 

20-25  state.     Upon  cross-examination  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

25  S.G.Randall:  Hive  at  42  LaSalle  street;  am  twenty-three  years  old.  I 
am  employed  as  a  seedsman  byj.  C.  Vaughan;  have  lived  in  Chicago  two 
and  a  half  years.  I  came  here  from  Erie  county,  Pennsylvania,  where  I  was 

26  a  farmer.  I  have  heard  and  read  some  about  the  Haymarket  occurrence. 
I  have  formed  no  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  of  the  de- 

27  fendants.     I  am  not  acquainted  with  any  of  the  defendants.     I  don't  un- 
derstand the  principles  advocated  by  socialists,  communists  or  anarchists. 
I  know  of  no  prejudice  or  bias  or  any  reason  why  I   could  not  return  a 
fair  and  impartial  verdict   under  the  law  and  the  evidence.     I  went  into 

29         my  present  employment  last  fall.     From  spring  until  fall  last  year  I  had 


(49) 

VOL.  B. 

a  milk  route,  owned  my  wagon  and  bought   the  milk.     Previous  to  that 
I  was  in  the  City  Hotel,  i6th  and  State  streets,  first  as  a  common  laborer, 
30          then  as  a  waiter. 

Accepted  and  tendered  by  the  defendants  to  the  state. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

32-35  I  think  1  could  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants  upon 
the  proof  presented  here  in  court,  regardless  of  everything  else.  I  think 
I  have  seen  defendant  Fielden  upon  the  lake  front  one  Sunday  when  I 
was  there,  either  this  summer  or  last. 

36,  37        M.  P.  Carroll:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

38-40       F.  C.  Gibbs:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

Owen  Murray:  I  formed  and  expressed  and  still  entertain  quite  a 
strong  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused. 
I  believed  the  statements  which  I  read  sufficiently  to  base  my  opinion 
upon  them;  I  don't  know  that  I  ever  expressed  my  belief  that  the  news- 
paper accounts  were  true  or  not.  I  have  a  prejudice  against  the  class 
of  communists,  anarchists  and  socialists. 

43  Q.     Have  you  a  prejudice  which  will  influence  your  judgment,  sitting 

as  a  juror,  if  it  should  appear  or  be  conceded  that  the  defendants  be- 
longed to  the  class  of  communists,  anarchists  or  socialists,  which  would 
prevent  you  from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court  and  exception.) 

I  don't  believe  that  the  opinion  which  I  now  have  would  prevent 
me  from  rendering  a  verdict  under  the  testimony;  1  would  not  convict 
the  defendants  on  newspaper  reports;  I  could  leave  my  prejudices 
entirely  out  of  the  case. 

Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

45,46       W.  D.  Field:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

47-49       M.  Gavlev:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

50-52       B.  M.  Giroux:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

53-55       C.  D.  Sherman:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

56-59       John  Daley:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

60,  61       C.  J.  Stratton:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

62,63       James  P.  Dryer:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

64-69       Martin  Levy:     Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state  by  the  defendants 

71          was  challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state. 

72-74       George  A.  Hitchcock:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

75>  76      John  Goldman:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 


(50) 

VOL.  B. 

77,78  James  H.  Leonard:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

79,  80  Phillip  Knusmann:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

81,82  James  Foley:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

85,  86  John  W.  Thomas:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

87,  88  E.  L.  Park:     Challenged  for  cause  b}*  defendants. 

89,90  R.  B.  Whitney:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

91  Frank  H.  Krugel:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

92-94  J.  F.  Somes:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

95,96  George  J.  Smith:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

97,98  C.  J.  Albertine:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

99  T.  H.  Dowd:     I  have   formed  and   expressed   and  still  entertain   an 

opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  these  defendants.  I  did 
not  express  an  opinion  about  the  correctness  of  what  I  heard  and  said  in 
regard  to  the  matter.  I  don't  think  my  opinion  would  prevent  me  in 

102  rendering  an  impartial  verdict.     I  have  a  prejudice  against  the  class  of 
anarchists,  communists  and  socialists. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  that  prejudice  is  so  strong  that  it  will  in 
any  way  influence  your  verdict  if  you  should  be  selected  as  a  juror  in 
this  case? 

(Questions  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

Q.  Sitting  as  a  juror,  listening  to  the  testimony  as  it  may  be  intro- 
duced by  witnesses  upon  the  stand  and  the  law  as  given  you  by  the 
court,  do  you  now  believe  that  the  prejudice  which  you  have  against  the 
classes  to  which  I  have  referred  would  prevent  you  from  rendering  an 
impartial  verdict  in  the  case,  provided  it  should  be  established  or  con- 

103  ceded  that  the  defendants  or  some  of  them  belonged  to  one  or  the  other 
of  the  classes  to  which  I  have  referred? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

Q.  If  it  should  appear  or  be  conceded  that  the  defendants  were  com- 
munists, anarchists  or  socialists,  would  it  require  less  evidence,  or  more 
evidence,  to  acquit  or  convict  than  though  that  fact  did  not  appear? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

104  I    think   I    could   act   entirely   upon    the    law    and    the    evidence    and 
render  a  verdict  in  this  case  regardless  of  my  opinion  and  without  preju- 
dice as  to  the  defendants. 

Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

105-106  Henry  Hassel:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
107-112   Charles  Neumeister:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
113-117  B.  W.  Pierce:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 


(50 

VOL.  B. 

118,  119  F.  H.  Edler:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
120-122  Charles  J.  Dobson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
123  George  Pearce:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

H.  Haker:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 


125  Theodore  Denker:     I  live  at  Woodlawn   Park,  in   the  town  of  Hyde 
Park.     I  have  formed,  and  expressed,  and  still  entertain  an  opinion  upon 
the  question  of  the  defendants'  guilt  or  innocence  upon   the  charge  of 
murder. 

Q.  You  believe  what  you  read  and  what  you  heard?  A.  I  believe 
it,  yes. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  such  as  to  prevent  you  from  rendering  an  impartial 
verdict  in  the  case,  sitting  as  a  juror  under  the  testimony  and  the  law? 

126  A.     I  think  it  is. 

Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

If  I  were  taken  and  sworn  as  a  juror  in  the  case  I  think  I  could  de- 
termine the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented 
to  me  here  in  court,  regardless  of  any  prejudice  or  opinion,  or  of  what  I 
have  read. 

The  COURT:  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  fairly  and  impartially  try 
the  case,  and  render  an  impartial  verdict  upon  the  evidence  as  it  may  be 
presented  here,  and  the  instructions  of  the  court?  A.  Yes,  I  think  I 
could. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled.) 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION. 

127  I    have    formed    my    opinion    from    reading    the    papers    and    from 
conversations,     but     I     don't      believe     everything     I     read     in      the 
newspapers;    I    believed     enough,     however,     to     form     an     opinion 
upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the   defendants.     I   never 

128  expressed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  whether  the  newspapers  were  correct 
or  not.     I  am  shipping  clerk  for  Henry  W.  King  &  Co.,  wholsale  cloth- 
iers, corner   Madison  and  Franklin,  since  about  two  years   and  three 
months.     I  am  27  years  old.     Previous  to  my  last  engagement  I  worked 
as  conductor  on  a  wagon   in   the   United   States   Express   Company.     I 

129  have  formed  my  opinion  entirely  from  what   I  have  read  in  the  newspa- 

130  pers.     I  am  unmarried,  I  live  with  my  parents.     I  don't  know  anything 

131  about  socialism,  anarchism  or  communism.     I  think  I   am  a  little  preju- 


(52) 
VOL.  B. 

diced  against  socialism.  I  don't  know  that  I  am  against  anarchism,  in 
fact,  I  don't  really  understand  what  their  principles  are.  I  think  I  could 
try  the  case  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence,  notwithstanding  my  opinion. 
I  think  I  have  expressed  my  opinion  pretty  freely. 

131^  Q.  Would  you  feel  yourself  in  any  way  governed  or  bound  in  listening 
to  the  testimony  and  determining  it,  by  the  pre-judgment  of  the  case  that 
you  had  expressed  to  others  before?  A.  Well,  that  is  a  pretty  hard 
question  to  answer;  I  don't  think  I  would  have  to  guard  against  the 

132       opinion  which  I  have  expressed.     I  think  I  would  lay  it  aside. 
Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state  by  the  defendants. 

133,  134  Upon  cross-examination  Mr.  Denker  was  accepted  by  the  state. 

137-139  W.  L.  Mann:  I  have  read  and  talked  about  this  case,  have  foirmed 
some  opinion  about  it.  I  don't  know  any  of  the  defendants.  I  think  I 
could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof 
presented  to  me  here  in  court,  regardless  of  what  I  have  heard  or  read, 
or  the  opinion  which  I  have  formed. 

(Accepted  and  tendered  to  defendants  by  the  state.) 

140-142  CROSS-EXAMINATON. 

I  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the   defend- 
ants, wich  I  still  entertain,  from  what  I  have  heard  and  read  about  the 
143       case.     I  don't  know  that  I  ever  expressed  it.     I  have  a  prejudice  against 
socialists,  communists  and  anarchists  as  a  class. 

Q.  Would  that  prejudice  bias  your  judgment  as  a  juror  in  this  case 
if  it  should  appear  or  be  conceded  that  the  defendants  were  communists, 
anarchists  or  socialists? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  it  would  take  more  evidence,  or 
less  evidence  of  the  guilt  or  the  innocence,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  acquit 
or  convict  the  defendants,  from  the  fact  that  it  might  be  proved  or  con- 
ceded that  they  were  communists,  socialists  or  anarchists? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

Q.  Notwithstanding  you  have  a  prejudice  against  these  classes,  I 
will  ask  you  if  you  feel  that  your  mind  is  absolutely  unbiased,  and  that 
you  can  render  an  unprejudiced  verdict  under  the  evidence  introduced, 
and  the  instructions  of  the  court? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 


(53) 

VOL.  B. 

145-150  John  A.  Anderson:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
151-154  Robert  G.  Barrett:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

155, 156  John  Johnson:  I  have  read  the  accounts  of  the  Haymarket  occurrence 
and  discussed  the  matter  to  a  certain  extent.  To  a  certain  extent  I  be- 
lieve what  I  read  and  heard  about  it.  I  have  formed  and  still  entertain 
an  opinion  as  to  the  defendant's  innocence  or  guilt  on  account  of  what  I 
have  read  and  heard,  and  I  believe  I  have  expressed  that  opinion  to  others. 
I  think  I  could  return  an  impartial  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the 

157  evidence.     I  have  to  a  certain  extent  a  prejudice  against  socialists,  anar- 
chists and  communists. 

Q.     Would  that  prejudice   affect  your  verdict  in   this  case  if  it  were 
conceded  that  the  defendants  belonged  to  those  classes? 
(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception). 

158  Q.     Is  this  opinion  which  you  have  formed  a  fixed  opinion — that  is,  is 
it  a  strong  opinion,  or  a  slight  impression?     A.     It  is  not  very  strong;  it 
can  possibly  be  removed   by  evidence  contrary  to  what  I  have  read;  I 
I  don't  think  it  would  prevent  me  from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in 
the  case. 

Q.     Is  it  one  which  would  require  evidence  to  remove? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception). 

Q.     Do  you  now  say  that  it  would  require  strong  evidence  to  remove 
your  opinion? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception). 

!59  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  challenged  peremptorily  by  defend- 

ants). 

160,  161  W.  H.  Barry:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
162,  163   Max  Levinson:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
164-166  J.  B.  Sharp:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
167,  168  William  Hayden:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
169-171   Henry  Carsons:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
172-174  Charles  E.  Willetts:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
179-183  E.  O.  Tooker:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
184-186  Joseph  Fish:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

187,  188  Clarence  H.  Hill:  I  have  formed  and  still  entertain  an  opinion  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  based  upon  the  belief  of  what  I 
have  read  about  the  Haymarket  occurrence.  I  have  not  expressed  that 
opinion  to  others.  I  think  I  could  try  the  case  according  to  the  law  and 
the  evidence,  notwithstanding  my  opinion,  or  what  I  have  read  or  heard 
about  the  case. 


(54) 

VOL.  B. 

194  Q.     Have  you  now  any  prejudice  against  the  class   known   as   anar- 
chists, communists  or  socialists?     A.     Well  I  should  say  I  have. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  whether  that  prejudice  is  such  that  it  would 
prevent  you  from  listening  to  the  sworn  testimony  in  this  case  and  the 
charge  of  the  court  and  render  an  absolutely  impartial  verdict  in  the 
case? 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 

195  Q.     Do  you  believe  that  notwithstanding  your  prejudice  and  opinions 
you  can  listen  to  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  sworn  in   this   case   and 
the  charge  by  the  court  and  render  an  impartial  verdict  in  this  case?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  opinions,  biases  or  prejudices  which  it  would  re- 
quire testimony  to  overcome?  A.  Yes,  I  have. 

(Challenged  for  cause  on  the  last  answer;  challenge  overruled,  and 
exception.) 

196  Mr.  Hill  was  then  peremptorily  challenged  by  defendants. 
197,198  Cyrus  P.  Wright:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
199-201   Charles  A.  Baker:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
202-204  E.  B.  Kilham:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
205,  206  Henry  Sanmeyer:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
207-209  Henry  C.  Gross:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
210-219  William  W.  Barnard:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
220-223  James  T.  O'Rourke:    From  reading  about  the  Haymarket  occurrence 

I  formed  an  opinion  that  the  defendants  were  morally  responsible  for  it; 

I  have  that  opini.on  now.     I  have  not  expressed  it,  to  my  knowledge,  it 

would  not  prevent  me  from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in   the  case 

according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  defendants. 

225-227  Richard  Waters:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
228-230  John  Bodden:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
231,  232  Lewis  O'Neil:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
233,234  Rudolph  Shavow:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
235-237  B.  D.  Uptigrove:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
238,239  F.  J.  Hoffman:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
240,  241    Henry  T.  Hart:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
242-244  C.  McGovern:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
245-247  J.  L.  Worthington:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
248-250  E.  W.  Bradbury:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
251,  252  John  Soderberg:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 


(55) 
VOL.  B. 

253,  254  Edwin  W.  Hanley:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
255,  256  George  Olsen:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
257-263  Benjamin  F.  Nourse:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
264,  265  Felix  McHugh:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
266-268  Charles  Jesse:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
269-272  G.  M.  Pitner:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
273-282  E.  J.  Dutcher:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 
283-285  W.  H.  Stillson:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
286,  287  Robert  Miller:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
288—296  Thomas  S.  Wild:  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

297  C.  B.  Todd:  I  live  at  1,013  West  Polk  street;  I  am  a  salesman  in  the 
Putnam  Clothing  House.     I  have  read  newspaper  accounts  of  the  Hay- 
market  occurrence   and  had  conversations  in   regard   to  it.     I  have  an 

298  opinion  as  to  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants;  it 
is  not  a  firm  opinion.     I  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and   be   governed 
solely  and  entirely  by  the  evidence  and  the  charge  of  the  court.     I  have 
lived  in  Chicago  four  years.     I  came   here  from  the  southern  part  of 
Minnesota  where   I  lived    sixteen    years    and  carried   on   a   mercantile 

299  business  for  myself.     I  am  a  man  of  family.    I  have  no  prejudice  against 
the  class  of  socialists,  communists  or  anarchists.     I  think  of  them  as  ad- 
vanced thinkers,  but  have  no  prejudice. 

300  The  matter  was  talked  about  in  the  store;  opinions  were  expressed  in 
my  hearing;  I  presume  I  expressed  my  opinion.     I  am  not  conscious  of 

301  any  reason  why  I  could  not  determine  this  case   purely,  solely  and   en- 

• 

tirely  upon  the  evidence  introduced  upon  the  trial  and  the  charge  of  the 

302  court.     I  have  no  prejudice  against    trades    unions    or   labor    unions. 
I  served  in  the   war  from    1864   until    the    close.     I    am    forty-seven 
years  old. 

303  (Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state  by  the  defendants.) 

(Upon  cross-examination,  Mr.  Todd  is  accepted  by  the  state,  and 
with  James  H.  Cole,  S.  G.  Randall  and  Theodore  Denker,  sworn 
to  try  the  issues  in  this  case.) 

306-308    James  W.  Newburn:  Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the 

365       state,  was,  upon    cross-examination,   challenged    for   cause    by  the  de- 

367       fendants. 

309-311     E.  W.  Beck:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

312-315     S.  K.  Whittemore:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

316-318     William  Stein:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 


(56) 

VOL.  B. 

319-322     E.  J.  Macheret:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

323-325     David  Dunseath:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the.  state. 

326,  327     Marshall  Fay:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

328-330  and  350     Nathan  Dickinson:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

33I-335     George  A.  Fellows:    Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the 

358       state.     Was,  upon   cross-examination,  challenged  for  cause  by  the  de- 

360       fendants.  . 

33^,  339     Martin  B.  Lightcap:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

340-342     D.  H.  Broadway:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

343-345     T.  J.  Doyle:    Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

346-348     O.  F.  Carpenter:    Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the 

369       state.     Was,  upon  cross-examination,   challenged   for  cause  by  the  de- 

364       fendants. 

351,  352     John  Hogelman:  Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

353-355     B.  Herzog:  Challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 

356)  357     W.  D.  Curtis:  Accepted  and  tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the  state. 

372—375   Was  upon  cross-examination  challenged  for  cause  by  the  defendants. 

369-371     E.  C.  Grant:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

377  The  last  panel  of  four  jurors  tendered  to  the  defendants  by  the  state 

having  been  exhausted  by  challenges  for  cause,  allowed  as  to  each  of 
them,  the  defendants  move  the  court  to  direct  the  state  to  tender  the  de- 
fendants another  panel  of  four  jurors. 

379  (The  motion  is  overruled,  and  the  defendants  except.) 

380-388  and  511     K.  Einstedt:  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

389-393     John  Scanlon:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

394-396     Phillip  Gedleman:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

397-399     D.  D.  Thurber:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

400,401     R.  L.  Guerin:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

402,403     S.  E.  Nelson:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

404-410     A.  F.  Triester:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

411-415     Samuel  Armstrong:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

416-419     William  Leanthal:  Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

420-426  (Vol.  C.  90)  W.  C.  Hazeltine:  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defend- 
ants. 

427-436   (Vol.  C.  158)   R.H.Moore:    Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

437-446  J.  B.  Jenkins:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

447-450  S.  C.  Rowly:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

451-453  C.  E.  Anderson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

454-456  Charles  Holtz:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 


(57) 

VOL.  B. 

457,458   Hamilton  Crary:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

459,  460  A.  B.  Phillips:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

461—464  Charles  Noyes:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

465,466  G.  B.  Fisher:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

467,  468  C.  O.  Winter:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

469,470  Charles  Sander:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

471-476  Julius  Weske:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

477-479  E.  C.  Tracy:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

480,481  J.  J.  Trimble:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

482-493  George  D.  Eddy:     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

494,495  C.  S.  Lammert:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

496-498  D.  H.  Howe:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

499-503  A.  Van  Sicklen:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

504  D.  B.  Harris:     Excused  by  agreement. 

505,506  F.  A.  Hartman:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

507,508  N.  B.  Hanson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

509,510  W.  G.  Miller:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

VOL.  c. 

1-7  E.  Melchior:     Examined  by  defendants,  was  tendered   to  state  (page 

454),  and  by  the  state  permptorily  excused.      (Page  455.) 
8—12         O.  M.  Reed:    Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
13-15       C.  L.  Skinner:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
16-19      J.  F.  Muchmore:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
20,21        W.H.Johnson:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
22,  23       Riley  Darnell:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
24,25       John  P.  Dabney:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
26-28       William  D.  Hollis:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
29-31        F.  Basterfield:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
32,  33       R.  I.  Stearns:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
34  William  C.  Nicholas:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

35-39       W.  S.  Minckler:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
40-43       John  N.  Chapman:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
44—49       James  A.  Parish:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

50  William  Neil,  manufacturer  of  oil  tanks;  doing  business  in  Chicago; 
have  heard  and  read  about  the  Haymarket  difficulty,  and  believed  enough 
thereof  to  form  some  opinions  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defend- 
ants, which  opinion  I  still  have,  but  it  is  not  so  strong  that  evidence  would 

51  not  change  it— strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  would  change  my  opinion. 
I  have  expressed   that  opinion.     It  would  take  pretty  strong  evidence  to 


VOL.  c. 

52  change  my  opinion,  but  I  believe  I  could  change  it.    I  would  stick  to  my 
present  opinion  until  changed    by  evidence.     I  could  not  dismiss  it  from 

53  my  mind;  could  not  lay  it  altogether  aside  during  the  trial.     Believe  my 
present  opinion  would  influence  me  in  determining  and  getting  at  a  ver- 
dict.    I  believe  I  could  determine  the  question  of  the  guilt   or  innocence 
of  the  defendants   solely  upon  the  testimony   in  court,  without  being  in- 
fluenced   by  my  present   opinion.     I   could   not  lay  aside  the  impression 

54  that  I  now  have  during  the  trial.     I  could  not  forget  what  I  have  heard 
and  read.     The  impression  would  accompany  me,  and  it   would  require 
strong  evidence  to  remove  the  opinion  I  now  have;  but  I  could   give  a 
fair  verdict  on  whatever  evidence  I  would  hear.     Have  formed  and  ex- 

55  pressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  the  defendants. 
Challenged  for  cause. 

56  To  the  Court:     I   have   no  personal  acquaintance  with  any  of  the  de- 
fendants, and   no  ill-will   towards   them,  "  except  such  as  grows  out  of 
what  I  have  read  or  heard  about   the   transactions  at  the  Haymarket  on 
the  night  of  May  4th,  the  night  of  the  4th   of  May."     Believe  I  could 
fairly  and  impartially  make   up   my  mind   as  to  what  occurred  from  the 
evidence  in  the  court — know  that   no  man  should   be   convicted  except 

57  upon  evidence,  and  believe  I  could  act  as  a  juror  here. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants.     Chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

58-66       E.  D.  Kimball,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
67-70       E.  B.  Reith,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
71-73       M.  Spurback,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

74  W.  N.  Whitehead:  Reside  in  Evanston;  have  resided  in  Cook  county 

thirty  five  years.  Am  a  member  of  the  Chicago  and  Erie  Stove  Com- 
pany, a  limited  partnership  association.  I  have  read  and  heard  about 

7*5  the  Haymarket  difficulty,  and  believed  enough  of  what  I  so  read  and 
heard  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  one  or  more  of 
the  defendants,  which  opinion  I  have  expressed,  and  still  entertain.  I 
think  I  could  render  a  fair  verdict  uninfluenced  by  my  opinion.  I  still 

76  have  that  opinion;  have   expressed  it.     It  is  an  opinion.     I  now  believe 
what  I  read  in  the  newspapers.     Had  frequent  conversations  about  the 
case,  but  don't  think  the   matter  of  my  belief  of  what  I  had  heard  and 
read    was  ever  discussed,   or  that   I  ever  before    expressed  an  opinion 

77  upon  that  subject.     I  have  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  some  of  the   defendants,  which   is   a  pretty  firm   opinion    now. 


(59) 

VOL.  C. 

85  I  have  read  of  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists,  and  have  formed  a 
decided  prejudice  against  them. 

"  Q.     Would  you  extend  that  prejudice  to  the  individuals  who  profess 
the  doctrines  of  socialists,  communists  or  anarchists?  " 
(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception). 

"  Q.     Do  you  now  believe  that  if  it  were  conceded  or  proven  on  the 
trial  of  this  case,  that  these  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  were  anarchists, 
socialists  or  communists,  that   fact  would  influence  you   one  way  or  the 
other  in  arriving  at  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  in  the  case?" 
(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception). 

86  I  have  met  a  person  who  claimed  to  have   been   present  at  the  Hay- 
market  meeting,  and  who  undertook  to  detail  to  me  the  facts  as  they  oc- 
curred. What  he  told  me  coincided  with  the  facts  as  I  before  understood 
them  and  supported  the  opinion  which   I    had   formed    from  reading  the 

87  newspapers,  and  I  believed  what   they  said  in  the  main.     I  believed  the 
account  given  me  by  the  person  who  claimed  to  have  been  present  at  the 
Haymarket  meeting. 

122  (This  witness  was  challenged  for  cause   on  all  his   answers;  chal- 

lenge overruled;  thereupon  challenged  peremptorily  by  defend- 
ants). 

91  James  W.  Oakley:     Reside  in  Hyde  Park;  have  lived  in  Cook  county 
twenty  years;  am  in   the  leather  business   and  manufacture.       Have  a 
down-town  office  and  a  factory  in  the  north-western  part  of  the  citv.     I 
have  heard  and  read  of  the  Haymarket  difficulty,  and  believed  enough  of 
the  reports  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of 
the  defendants,  which  I  have  expressed  and  still  entertain. 

92  "  Q.     Is  that  opinion  so   strong   and  firmly  fixed  in  your  mind  that  it 
would  take  strong  circumstances  and  evidence  to  remove  it?  " 

(Question  refused  by  court,  and  exception  by  defendants). 

93  Think  I  could  determine  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
defendants  from  the  evidence  produced   in  court,  but  don't  think  I  could 
do  so  uninfluenced  by  the  opinion   which  I  now  have.     I   think   that   the 

94  opinion  which  I  now   have,  and  what  I  have   read   and    heard  would  in- 
fluence me  in  arriving  at  a  verdict. 

Challenged  for  cause. 

To  the  Court:     Have  no   acquaintance  with  the  defendants;    don't 
think  I  have  ever  seen  them  before;  have  no  feeling  with  regard  to  what 

95  is  called  the  Haymarket  matter,  and  the  connection   of  the  defendants, 


(6o) 

VOL,.  C. 

or  supposed  connection  of  the  defendants,  or  some  of  them  with  that. 
Think  I  could  determine  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
defendants  upon  the  evidence  alone. 

96  Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants. 

97  Further  examined:     I  guess  I  read  about  the   Haymarket  trouble  in 
all  the  papers.     I  believed  what  I  read,  and  have  said  to  my  family  that 

98  I  thought  the  reports  were  true;  and  the  indictment  by  the  grand  jury 
has  added  to  my  impression. 

Challenge  for  cause  renewed. 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I   believe  in  the  main  what  I  read  and  heard. 

99  To  the  Court:     I  don't  think  I  did  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  truth 
of  what  I  had  read,  but  expressed  an  opinion  based  on  what  I  had  read. 

101  To  defendants'  counsel:     I  have  read   of  socialists,  communists  and 
anarchists,  and  formed  an  idea  concerning   them;  think  there  is  no  place 
in  this  country  for  them. 

"  Q.  If  it  should  be  proven  or  conceded  on  the  trial  of  this  case  that 
the  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  are  anarchists  or  communists,  would 

102  this  opinion  of  yours  in  regard  to  these  classes  that  you  have  now  ex- 
pressed, influence  you  in  arriving  at  a  just  and  impartial  verdict?  " 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.  Challenged  on  the 
ground  of  the  expression  of  his  opinion,  and  upon  his  answers 
generally.  Challenge  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants.) 

103  Edmund  Knauer:     Am  in  the  real  estate   business  in  Chicago.   Have 
formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  one  or 
more  of  the  defendants,  which  I  now  have — "  a  pretty  strong  opinion;  it 
would  take  pretty  good  evidence  to  change  it."    Think  I  could  determine 
the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  upon  the  evidence. 

104  (Challenged  for  cause;  overruled,  and  exception.) 

108  Am  prejudiced  against  socialists  and  communists. 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  that  the  prejudice  against  anarchists  would  con- 
trol you  in  a  trial  in  which  the  defendants  were  conceded  to  be  an- 
archists?" 

109  (Question  overruled   by  the  court,  and  exception.     Challenged  per- 

emptorily by  defendants,) 

no-112    George  S.  Sawyer:     Examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause. 

113-119  I.  W.  R.  Peales,  examined  by  defendants;  stated  that  he  had  heard 
and  read  about  the  Haymarket  affair,  sufficient  to  form  an  opinion 
which  he  still  entertained  and  had  occasionally  expressed;  that  he  be- 


VOL.    C. 

lieved  what  he  had  read  and  was  prejudiced  against  socialists   and  com- 
munists. 

Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

1 20,  121   Otto  Luhring,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause. 

123,124  George  W.  Todd,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause. 

125  W.  D.  Allen:     Am  in  the   wholesale  rubber  business,  reside  in  Chi- 
cago; of  the  firm  of  E.  B.  Preston  &  Co.;  have  read  and  heard  about 
the   Haymarket  difficulty,  and  from  what   I  have  read  and  heard  have 
formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  the  defendants, 
which  I  now  entertain  and  have  frequently  expressed;  a  strong  opinion. 

126  It  is  a  decided  conviction.     My  mind  is  made  up  as  to   whether  the  de- 
fendants   are   guilty    or    innocent.     It    would    be    difficult    to    change 
that  conviction;    perhaps  impossible.     "  It  would  be  hard  to  change  my 
conviction." 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To    Mr.    Grinnell:     I  could  determine    the    innocence    or    guilt    of 
the  defendants  upon  the  evidence  in  court  regardless  of  my  opinion. 
To  the  Court:     I  have  no  personal  acquaintance  with  the  defendants; 

127  never  saw  them  before  to  my  knowledge;  have  no  feeling  against  them 
"  except  such  as  grows  out  of    what  I  have  read  or   heard  in  connection 
with    the    matter    which   is    referred   to    as    the  Haymarket  difficulty." 
Would  endeavor  to  get  at  the  truth  as  a  juror,  and   believe  that   I  could 
fairly  and  impartially  try  it  by  the  evidence  in  court  and  the  instructions. 
Am  familiar  with  the  rule  of  law  that  a  juror  should  be  governed  by  the 

128  evidence.     Believe  that  I  will  fairly  and  impartially  apply  that  rule  to  the 
present  case. 

128-130  Argument  in  support  of  challenge  for  cause. 
(Challenge  overruled  and  exception.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

131  A.  L.  Ketchum:     Am  in  the  drug  business    with  Peter  Van  Schaack 
&  Sons,  138  Lake  street;  am  twenty-two  years  old;  have  rtad  and  heard 
about  the  Haymarket  difficulty  sufficiently  to    form  an    opinion  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  one  or  more    of   the    defendants.      Have  expressed 

132  that  opinion   and  still  entertain  it.     It   is  a  strong   opinion,   but  I  think  I 
could  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict. 

"  Q.      Would  it  require  testimony  to  overcome  that  opinion,  or  circum- 
stances? " 

(Question  refused  by  the  court,  and  exception.) 


(62) 
VOL.  C. 

133  Believe  I  will  be  uninfluenced  in  hearing  the  evidence  by  my  present 

134  opinion.     I  have  conversed  about  this  case.     I   was  pointed   out  by  my 

135  employer  to  the  deputy  to  be  served   for  a  juror  in  this  case — was  called 

136  down  by  my  employer  and  pointed   out  to  the  sheriff,  who  then  served 
179  me.     I  repeat  that  I  have  a  decided   opinion  as   to  the  guilt  or  innocence 

of  the  defendants,  which   I  have  expressed  to  others  and  still  entertain. 

(Challenge  for  cause.) 

i So  To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I  think  I  can  determine  the  innocence  or   guilt  of 

the  defendants  on  the   proofs   in   court,  regardless   of  my  opinion    and 
everything  outside. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants.  Chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

137,  138  R.  D.  Woodruff,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause. 
139,  140  G.  W.  Roberts,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause. 
141-148  William  Williamson,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause. 

149  H.  F.  Chandler;  am  in  the  stationery  business  with  Skeen,  Stuart  & 
Co.     Have  heard  and  read  of  the  Haymarket  trouble,  and  from  what  I 
have  heard  and  read,  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  some  of  the  defendants,  which  I  still  entertain  and  have  expressed  be- 

150  fore  coming  into  court.     I  believed  what   I  heard  and  read,  but  I  have 
never  expressed   my  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the   accounts   received. 
The  opinion  I   have  is   a  decided   opinion,  and   my  mind  is   pretty  well 
made  up.     "  It  will  take  evidence  to  satisfy  me."  My  opinion  was  based 

151  on  the   newspaper  reports.     It   might  be  hard    to  change   my  opinion. 
Believe  I  could  determine  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  these 

152  defendants  solely  upon  the  evidence  presented   in  court,  uninfluenced  by 
my  present  opinion.     Have  a  pretty  strong  prejudice  against  socialists, 
anarchists  and  communists. 

"  Q.  If  it  should  be  proven  or  conceded  on  this  trial  that  the  defend- 
ants or  some  of  them  are  socialists,  anarchists  or  communists,  do  you 
think  your  prejudice  would  in  any  way  influence  your  verdict?" 

(Question  refused  by  the  court  and  exception  by  defendants.) 
157  I  was  pointed   out  to  the  deputy   sheriff  by   my  employer   to  be  sub- 

pccnaed  as   a  juror.     I   repeat   that   I  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the 

209  guilt  or  innocence  of   some  of   the   defendants,  which   I  have  quite  fre- 
quently expressed. 

(Challenge  for  cause.) 

210  To   the  court:     Dqn't   know   defendants.     Think  I  have  some  feeling 


(63) 

VOL.  C. 

against  the  defendants,  not  only  based  upon  what   I  have  read  about  the 
Haymarket  trouble,   but   on  matters  which  I  heard   before  that.     The 

211  only  opinion  I  have  is  based  upon  what  I  have  heard  and  read,  and  I  be- 
lieve that  I  can  fairly  trv  the  case  solely  upon  the  evidence.     I  have  now 

212  an   opinion  upon  the  question  as   to  whether  the  defendants  did   the  act 
which  resulted  in  the  death  of  Mathias  Degan. 

212  The  COURT:     It  don't  seem  to  me  it  makes  any  difference  in  the  com- 
petency of  a  juror,  whether   he  has  simply  formed   an  opinion  or  ex- 
pressed an  opinion  which  he  has  formed.     I  don't  see  how  it  makes  a 
particle  of  difference  in  his  state  of  mind.     Every  man  is  in  favor  of  jus- 

213  tice  and   fair-dealing  as  between  other  people   where  his  own   interests 
are  not  affected;  and,  as  I  have  said  before,  I  think  it  is  in  the  nature  of 
any  man  when  he  wants  to  find  out  the  truth  of  any  transaction,  that  he 
will,  when  the  original  sources  are   presented  to  him,  follow  them  and 
not  any  hearsay  that  he  has  ever  heard. 

(Challenge    for   cause    overruled.     Exception    by    defendants    and 
challenged  by  defendants  peremptorily.) 

158  Further  examination  of  Mr.  Moore:     I  stated  on  my  examination  on 

Saturday,  that  I  had  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the   guilt  or   innocence  of 
the  defendants.     I  was  pointed  out  to  the  deputy  to  be  summoned. 
Excused  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

159-161   A.  J.  At  water,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

162,  163  Charles  H.  Coffin,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

164-166  Edward   Scott,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

167-170  Frank  T.  Ford,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

171-178  and  396  I.  Springer,  challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

181-185  P.  W.  Nelson,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

1 86,  187   M.  S.  Davis,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

188-190  M.  Anderson,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

191,  192   M.  B.  Frost,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

193,  194  Charles  W.  Melcher,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

195  D.  F.  Swan;  reside   in  Chicago;  do  business  at   109  Dearborn  street. 
Have  heard  and  read  about  the  Haymarket  trouble,  and  formed  an  opin- 
ion as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  the  defendants,  which  I  still 
entertain,  and  have   occasionally  expressed   heretofore.     That  opinion  is 
at  present  firmly  fixed  in  my  mind.     I  believe  I   could  be  governed  as  a 

196  juror  by  the  evidence  alone.     Have  a  strong   prejudice  against   social- 


VOL.  C. 

197  ists,  communists  and  anarchists  and  their  views;  don't  believe  in  labor  or- 

198  ganizalions,  and  am  opposed  to  many  of  such  organizations. 

199  (The  same  questions  as  to  possible  influence  upon  the  verdict  of  the 

prejudice    against    socialists    and   anarchists,    as  in   other   cases, 
askrd  this  witness,  and  refused  by  the  court;  defendants  except.) 

200  I  have  had  a  conversation  with   a  policeman  who  was  present  at  the 
Haymarket,  in  regard  to  this  case,  and  he  made  a  statement  of  the  facts 
as  they  occurred  there,  to  me,  which  in  great  measure  I  believe  to  be  true.  I 

201  should  say  that  the   names   of  some  of  the  defendants  were  mentioned 
by  the  officer,  who  was  one  of  the  force  on  the  ground  at  the  time  of  the 
trouble,  namely,  Lieut.  Baird.     I  have  freely  expressed  the  opinion  as  to 

202  the  guilt  or  innocence   of  the  defendants  which   I  have  formed,  which 
opinion  I  still  have. 

(Challenge  for  cause.) 
To  the  Court:     I   have  no  personal  acquaintance  with  the  defendants 

203  nor  any  feeling  against  them,  except  "  such  as  grows  out  of  what  I  have 
heard  about  their  connection  with  the  Haymarket."     I  guess  I  could  sit 
here  and  listen  to  the  evidence,  and  from  the  evidence  make  up  my  mind 
as  to  the  truth  of  this  matter  without  reference  to  what  I  have   heard  or 
read. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  defendants  except,  and  challenge 
peremptorily-) 

204  Defendants  moved  the  court  for  the  appointment  of  a  special  bailiff  to 
serve  the  special  venires,  pursuant  to  the  statute. 

205  Defendants  requested  the  court  to  instruct  the  bailiff  as  to  his  duties — 
that  the  bailiff  should  summon    the  jurors  from  the  body  of  the  county, 
and  not  go  into  the  wholesale  district  or  wholesale  houses  and  ask  for 
names. 

206  Mr.  Grinnell  suggested   Mr.  Ryce  as  special  bailiff',  and  he  was   ac- 
cepted and  appointed. 

207  Mr.  Ryce  inquired  if  he  should  select  jurors  from  all  walks  in  life  and 
vocations.     The  court   replied:     "You  must  exercise  your  own  judg- 
ment in  getting  the  best  class  of  men;  that  is  all  I  know  about  it.     They 

208  may  be  selected  anywhere  in  the  county  that  the  bailiff"  pleases,  and  he 
must  exercise  his  own  judgment  to  get  the  best  kind  of  men  he  can." 

214-216  R.  A.  Hitchcock,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
217,  218  Richard  Braddell,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
219,  220  John  Childs,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 
221  James  P.  Hayde,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 


(65) 

VOL.  C. 

222  W.  Morgan,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

223,  224    W.  T.  Burke,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

225,  226  F.  W.  Thurston,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

227,  228  A.  C.  Land,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

229,  230  Matthew  Smith,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

231  E.  M.  Endicott,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

232,  233     Watson  Griffith,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

234,  235     Charles  Rogers,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

236       R.  D.  Fannon,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

237,  238     L.  M.  Tonnoyer,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

239,  240     W.  H.  V.  Thornton,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

241,  242     William  Chick,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

243  C.  H.  Gentry,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

244-246     Ed.  J.  Grady,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

247-249     A.  Carlson,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

250,  251     Geo.  Butters,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

252,  253     J.  C.  Oran,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

254,  255     James  Durham,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

256  A.  W.  Bonner:  Reside  at  794  Rawson  avenue.     In  business  in  floor 
and   ornamental  tiles,  for  myself.     Have  read  and   heard  considerable 

257  about  the  Hay  market  trouble,  but  did  not  form   any  opinion  as  to   the 

258  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants.     Have  expressed  an    opinion   con- 
cerning the  truth    of    the   story  which  I  have   read   and  heard.     I  am 

260       prejudiced  against  socialists,  anarchists  and  communists. 
263  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

264-271     Charles  N.  Post,  fully  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
272,  273     E.  S.  Downer,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
274,  275     Thomas  H.  Martin,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
276  M.  Tichnor,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

277,  278    James  S.  Bassett,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
279,  280     Walter  M.  Beecher,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
281,  282     F.  C.  Storey,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

283  T.  S.  Ingham,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

284  F.  I.  Wilson,  examined  by  defendants;  I  am  a  manufacturer  of  whole- 
sale galvanized  iron,  copper  and  zinc  material  at  81  East  Jackson  street, 
Chicago.     I  have  heard    and   read   about   the    Haymarket    trouble,  and 
have  formed  an  opinion  in  reference  thereto.     To   a  certain  extent,  I  be- 

285  lieved  the  newspaper  account,  and  have  an  opinion  as  to  the    guilt  or  in- 
nocence of   some  of  the   defendants,  which   I  have   expressed  and   still 


(66) 

VOL.  C. 

entertain.     I  think  that  opinion  might  prejudice  me   so  so  as  to  influence 
my  verdict — my  best  judgment  is  that  it  would  influence  me  in  rendering 
a  verdict. 
286  Challenge  for  cause. 

286  To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I  think  I  might,  if  taken  as  a  juror,  determine  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  upon   the  proof  presented  in  court, 
regardless  of  my  opinion  or  prejudice. 

To  the  Court:     I  have  no  personal  acquaintance  with  the  defendants. 

287  I  think,  possibly,  I  have  some  desire  that   there  shall  be  evidence  pro- 
duced upon  the  trial  which  shall  prove  some  of  these  men   to  be  guilty. 
I  have  no  feeling  toward  them  other  than  what  grows  out  of  what  I  have 
read  about  them.     It  might  be  that  if  I  were  to  sit  as  a  juror   the  effect 
of  the  evidence  for  or  against  the  defendants  would  be  increased  or  di- 

288  minished  by  what  I  have  heard  and   read.     I   desire  that   the  evidence 
should  establish  the  guilt  of  some  one,  but  not  necessarily  these  defend- 

289  ants,  and  don't  know  that  I  am  conscious  of  a  desire  that  they  should  be 
found  guilty.    I  don't  think  I  have  any  other  desire  than  that  the   truth 
may  be  discovered. 

(Challenge   for  cause   was  thereupon   overruled  by  the   court,  to 
which  defendants  excepted  and  challenged  peremptorily.) 

290  Charles  F.  Walker,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

291  Frank  S.  Osborne,  one  of  the  accepted  jurors,  stated:   I  am  an'  em- 
ploye in  the  firm  of  Marshall  Field  &  Co.     I  have  heard  and  read  about 
the  Haymarket  trouble,  but  have  not  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants.     In  the   reports   I  read  their  names  were 

292  mentioned.     I  saw  the  action  of  the  coroner's  jury,  and  think  I  read  the 
verdict,  but  am  not  positive;  think  I  must  have  done  so — read  the  papers 

295       every  day.     I  have  no  opinion   as  to  the  guilt  or   innocence  of  the  de- 
fendants. 

298,  299    J.  M.  Bennington,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
300-305     Sebastian  Bauer,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
306,307     C.  F.  Orr,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
309  H.  C.  Griffith,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

310,311     L.  J.  Mason,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
312-319     Fred.  Shank,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
320,321      A.  A.  W.  Burkhardt,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
322-324     S.  S.  Bliss,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
325-329     George  A.  Reardon,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 


(67) 

VOL.  C. 

330-333     H.  Larned,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
334'  335     H.  R.  Campbell,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 
33^,337     George  A.  Leiter,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

338  Jno.  Connoly,  clerk  at  Cranston  &  Stow's,  book  publishers,  Chicago: 
Heard  and  read  about   the  haymarket  meeting,  and  formed  an  opinion. 

339  Have  made  up  my  mind  as  to  whether  the  defendants  are  in  fact  guilty 
of  the  offense  there  committed,  which  opinion  is  firmly  fixed  in  my  mind, 
and  is  in  reference  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  these  defendants. 
Think  I  am  open  to  conversion,  and  that  evidence   to  the  contrary  of  my 

340  opinionjmight  change  my  views,  but  until  such  evidence  is  produced  I 
would  stick  to  my  present  opinion.  I  would  try  hard  to  be  governed  by  the 
evidence — I  like  to  be  fair-minded  and  haven't  any  revengeful  opinion. 

341  I  have  expressed  my  opinion  frequently.    In  weighing  the  testimony  pre- 
342       sented  in  court  I  might,  to  some  extent,  be  influenced   by  the   opinion  I 

343  now  have — in  determining  whether  the  proof  presented  is  sufficient  to 
establish  beyond  reasonable  doubt  the  guilt  of  the  defendants.     I  think  I 
would  be  influenced  in  that  matter. 

(Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 

To  the  Court:  I  think  I  would  be  influenced  in  the  case  supposed  to 
some  extent  by  my  present  opinion,  and  don't  think  I  can  fairly  and  im- 
partially try  the  case  on  the  evidence  alone — no,  I  think  I  could  try  the 
case  upon  the  evidence  alone,  "  at  least  I  would  try  hard  to."  Don't 

344  know  either  of  the  defendants  and  have  no  feeling  against  them  "  except 
such  as  grows  out  of  what  I  have  heard  or  read  about  them." 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled.  Exception  by  defendants,  and 
Connoly  challenged  peremptorily.) 

347-353  William  E.  Bogg;  employe  of  John  V.  Farwell  &  Co.,  examined; 
challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

354-356  F.  A.  Rehkopf,  carriage  manufacturer,  in  business  for  himself,  re- 
siding 745  West  Lake  street,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

357-360  S.  F.  English,  examined;  am  a  horse-shoer,  in  business  for  myself,  at 
817  West  Lake  street.  Challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

361-364  Otis  S.  Favor,  wholesale  commission  merchant,  examined;  challenge 
for  cause  sustained. 

365-366  Charles  Haubald,  cigar  manufacturer,  examined;  challenge  for  cause 
sustained. 

367-371     C.  Maguire,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

372-381  W.  T.  Glenn,  examined;  in  the  grocery  and  market  business  for  him- 
self; challenge  for  cause  sustained. 


(68) 

VOL.  C. 

382,  383  Edward  E.  Edgerton,  locksmith,  doing  business  for  himself;  challenge 
for  cause  sustained. 

384-388     J.  E.  Smith,  bookkeeper,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

389-395  E.  O.  Hubbard,  examined;  stated  that  he  was  a  shoe  salesman  for 
William  Goodyear,  whose  store  was  about  a  block  from  the  Desplaines 
street  station — that  he  had  read  and  heard  about  the  Haymarket  meeting 
and  had  formed  an  opinion  that  the  defendants  were  guilty,  believing 
what  he  had  read  and  heard,  which  opinion  he  still  entertained,  but  stated 
that  he  believed  he  could  try  the  case  upon  the  evidence  without  reference 
to  his  opinion. 

444,  445  Have  no  doubt  whatever  that  I  have  expressed  my  opinion  to  others. 
(Challenge  for  cause;  challenge  overruled;  exception  by  defendants, 
and  said  Hubbard  challenged  peremptorily). 

397-399  Joseph  E.Jones,  examined;  stated  that  he  was  in  the  painting  busi- 
ness for  himself  at  690  West  Lake  street;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

400-403  John  Kurtz,  a  butcher  at  219  Mohawk  street,  was  challenged 
peremptorily  by  defendants. 

404-406  Charles  Heinemann,  a  harness-maker  at  620  Wells  street;  challenge 
for  cause  sustained. 

407-411  Nicholas  Nelson,  shoe  salesman,  examined  by  defendants,  was  upon 
peremptory  challenge  excused. 

412-416  George  H.  Parker,  manufacturer  of  picture  frames,  examined;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  sustained. 

417-421  David  McLachlin,  grocer,  etc.,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sus- 
tained. 

422,423  J.  M.  Ranney,  dry  goods-  merchant,  examined;  challenge  for  cause 
sustained. 

424-427     E.  C.  Daniels,  baker  and  confectioner,  examined;  challenged  for  cause. 

428,  429     I.  D.  Kramer,  paint,  oil  and  wall  paper  dealer;  challenged  for  cause. 

430,  431     Edward  Walker,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

432,434     E.  H.  Lowis,  merchandise  broker;  challenged  for  cause. 

434-437  H.  J.  Whitcombe,  grocer,  in  business  for  himself,  examined;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  sustained. 

438-443     Thomas  Sargent,  examined  by  defendants. 

446,  447  Henry  Schweigerman,  coal  dealer  at  709  West  Lake  street,  examined; 
challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

448-452     Charles  Michaelis,  examined  by  defendants. 

454  The  jurors  Osborne,  Michaelis,  Melchior  and  Sargent,  accepted  by 

defendants  and  tendered  to  the  state. 


(69) 

VOL.  C. 

455  E.  Melchior,  challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state. 

457-459  and  476  Thomas  Sargent,  examined  by  the  state,  and  peremptorily 
challenged. 

460-463  and  469  Charles  Michaelis,  examined  by  the  state  and  challenged 
peremptorily. 

464,  468,  470  arid  503  L.  S.  Steadman,  examined  by  the  slate  and  challenged 
peremptorily. 

471-475  Frank  Mansfield,  examined  by  state  and  challenged  peremp- 
torily. 

477-480,  502  and  507  H.  L.  Anderson,  grocer  and  market  man,  examined  by 
the  state. 

481-483  E.  E.  Brown,  hardware  merchant,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge 
for  cause  sustained. 

484-489  N.  W.  Tryon,  picture  frame  dealer,  and  merchant  examined  by  the 
state;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

490-492     J.  Brietspraak,  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

493-497  G.  N.  Decker,  evangelist,  examined  by  the  state,  challenged  peremp- 
torily. 

498-501     M.  P.  Warner,  examined  by  the  state. 

504-506    J.  Meade,  examined  by  the  state. 

507  State  tender  to  defense  Osborne,  Meade,  Warner  and  Anderson. 

507-517  H.  L.  Anderson,  cross-examined  by  defendants.  Am  a  member  of  the 
butchers'  union — not  a  butcher  by  trade.  The  butchers'  union  is  a  be- 
nevolent society.  Read  about  the  Flaymarket  affair,  and  formed  an 

509  opinion  as  to  the  guilt   or  innocence  of  some  of  the  defendants.     Have 
very  frequently  talked  the  matter  over  with  other  people  and   expressed 
mv  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of   the  defendants,  which  I   still 

510  retain,  and  it  is  based  not  only  upon  what  I  read,  but  on  what  I  heard. 
I  believe  enough  of  what  I  read  and    heard   to  form  ah  opinion  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence   of    the   defendants.      Am  sure    I   could  lay  aside   my 

511  opinion,  and   try  the  case  upon  the  evidence  alone.     Am  well  acquainted 

512  with  some  of  the  police   force,  some  of  whom  are  friends  of  mine,  who 
were  present  at  the   Haymarket,  and  they  have  given   me  their  views  of 
the  matter  since  that  meeting,  and  told  me  what  happened   there  in  con- 
nection with   the  effort   to  disperse   the  crowd.     They  were  on  duty  that 

513  night,  and  some  of  them  were  injured  by  the  explosion  of  the  bomb.     I 
have   not  conversed    with    those    who   were    present  at    the    time   and 
injured,  but    with  those   who   were    present    and   not   injured.     I  knew 
one    of  the   men   that  were  killed    by  the  bomb — knew   him    well,     i 


(70) 

VOL.  C. 

formed  an  unqualified  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defend- 

514  ants,  which  I  regard  as  deep-seated,  a  firm  conviction  that  these  defend- 
ants, or  some  of  them,  are  guilty.  I  think  I  could  lay  that  all  to  one  side, 
however,  and  try  the  case  without  bias.  As  a  result  of  the  conversations 
that  I  had  with  the  policemen  present  at  the  meeting,  I  reached  an  opin- 
ion as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  the  defendants. 

516  Anderson  challenged  for  cause  upon  his  answers. 

518  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants  and  chal- 

lenged peremptorily.) 

519-525  M.  P.  Warner,  cross-examined  by  defendants  and  challenged  per- 
emptorily. 

526-528  J.  Meade,  cross-examined  by  defendants,  and  challenged  peremptorily. 

529,530  John  F.  Newell,  photographer,  examined  by  defendants,  and  challenge 
for  cause  sustained. 

531,  532  E.  Hobbs,  florist,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

533,  534  W.  Tobias,  notion  business,  examined  by  defendants,  and  challenge  for 
cause  sustained. 

535^539  O'°f  Jackson,  coal  merchant,  examined  by  defendants,  and  challenged 
peremptorily. 

540-543  Joseph  Imlay,  merchant,  examined,  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

544,  545  A.  W.  Lauderbeck,  auction  business,  examined  by  defendants,  chal- 
lenged for  cause. 

546-548  Charles  M.  Barren,  formerly  in  the  West  Town  tax  office,  regular 
business  meat  market,  examined  by  defendants  and  challenged  per- 
emptorily. 

549-554  August  Berg,  barber,  examined  by  defendants. 

555'  SS^  William  F.  Bosse,  cigar  manufacturer,  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  sustained. 

557,  558  Herman  Horn,  manufacturer  of  gold  and  silver  leaf,  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

558-!,  559  Jacob  Henrich,  hardware  merchant,  examined;  challenge  for  cause 
sustained. 

560  E.  C.   Morey,  crockery  and    glass-ware   merchant;  heard   and    read 

about  the  Haymarket  difficulty.     Have  conversed  with  some  members  of 
the  police  force;  know  a  number  of  them. 

565  Knew  Mathias  J.  Degan.     He  had  a  beat  near  my  store  and  was  very 

566  frequently  in  it.     My  acquaintance  with  him  led   me  to  inquire  particu- 
larly into  the  circumstances  of  his  death,  and  at  the  time  of  such  inquirv 


VOL.  C. 

I  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  or 
some  of  them,  which  opinion  I  now  have  and  have  expressed  to  others, 
but  I  think  I  could  render  a  fair  verdict  uninfluenced  thereby. 

576  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

568-575  and  582  A.  D.  Nye,  dry-goods    merchant,  examined   by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  sustained. 

577-581   C.  B.  Wilson,  druggist,  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

VOL.  D. 

1-5  W.  H.  Wilder,  dealer  in  meats  and  vegetables:     Examined  by  defend- 

ants; challenged  peremptorily. 

6-10         John  Mayer,  druggist:     Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

11-13       Thomas  H.  Carruthers,  boot  and  shoe  dealer:     Examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

14  T.  A.  Harney,  clothing  dealer:     Have  read   and  heard  of  the    Hay- 
market  meeting,  and  formed  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  defend- 
ants' guilt  or  innocence  which  I  still  have.     I  think  it  is  a  strong  opinion  ; 
think  it  would   prevent  me  from   rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in  this 
case.     Challenged  for  cause. 

15  To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I  would  not  undertake  to  convict   a  man  or  acquit 
him  on  a  newspaper  account,  and   know  that  his  guilt  should  be  proved 
in  court.    .Know  nothing  in  this  case,  except  what  I  got  from  the  news- 
papers, and  my  opinion   is  based  on  that;  think  I   could  determine  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof   presented  in  court, 
regardless  of  my  opinion. 

16  To  counsel  for  defendants:     I  have  now  a  firm  opinion  which  I  would 
take  with  me  into  the  jury,  and  I  think  that  opinion  would  influence  my 
verdict  after  the  testimony  was  introduced  and  the  charge  given.     I  be- 
lieve  I   would   be   prejudiced,  and  that   my  opinion  would  prevent  me 
from  rendering  an  unbiased  and  unprejudiced  verdict;  that  is  my  present 
judgment. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

17  To  the  Court:    Never  saw  any  of  the  defendants,  and  whatever  opin- 
ion I  have  is  based  on  what  I  heard    and  read,  which  I  took  for  granted 

18  to  be  true;  did    not  know    Began;  think   I  have  now   an   opinion  as  to 
whether  some  of  these  defendants  caused  the  wound  from  which'  Degan 
died.     Know  that  a  man  should  not  be  punished  unless  his  guilt  is  made 
certain — believe  I  could  listen  to  the  evidence,  and   fairly  and  impartially 
make  up  my  mind  as  to  whether  their  guilt  was  established  beyond  rea- 
sonable doubt;  don't  believe  that  conclusion  would  be  affected  by  my  pres- 


(72) 
VOL.  P. 

19  ent  opinion;  think  I  could  consider  the  evidence  alone,  and   be  governed 
by  that. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception.    Also,  objection  and 

exception  to  the  line  of  inquiry  adopted  by  the  court.) 
Further  examined  by  defendants:     I  believed  enough  of  what  I  heard 
and  read  to  form   an  opinion;  did  not  express   my  opinion  to  others; 

20  talked  with  policemen  who  were  at  the  Haymarket;  knew  one  of  them 

21  by  sight,  who  told  me  what  occurred  there,  and   my  opinion  as  to  the 
guilt  of  these  men  was  largely  based  on  what  he  said;  he  was  one  of  the 

22  ,       officers  engaged  in    dispersing  the   crowd;   don't   think  that  my  opinion 

would  prevent   my  rendering  an  impartial  verdict;  think  I  could  lay  it 

23  aside;  have  lived  in  Chicago  three  months;  came   here  the  first  of  last 
April  from   LaSalle  county;  am   in   business  for  myself;  a  single  man, 

24  and  my  parents  have  resided  here  a  year;  rented  my  present  store  about 
the  1 5th  of  March,  and  occupied  it  about  the  first  of  April;  can't  tell  ex- 
actly; came  here  to  stay  probably  about  the  first  of  April;  don't  remem- 

25  ber  the  name  of  the  policeman  I  talked  with. 

26  (Further  challenged  on  the  ground  that  it  did  not  appear  that  the 

juror  had  been  a  resident  of  the  county  ninety  days  before  being 
examined.) 
To  the  Court:     I   reside  with  my  parents  who  have  lived  here  for  a 

27  year;  came   up  from  La  Salle  and  took  my   store  in  March  to  engage  in 
business,  and  have  since  moved  up. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled  and  exception;  challenged  perempto- 
rily by  defendants.) 
29~32  Jonn  T.  McShane,  salesman    with  J.  W.  Tuohy  &  Co.,  dry-goods, 

examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 
33~35  J- J-  Shivery,  traveling  salesman,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

36,37  H.  D.  Cook,  grocer;  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

38-41  Thomas  K.  Elvey,  coal  dealer,  examined  by  defendants;  stated  that 

he  had  a  firm  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
from  what  he  had  heard  and  read,  but  that  he  did  not  believe  it  would 
influence  his  verdict. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

42  T.  E.  Keefe,  grocery  salesman,  wholesale  and  retail.       Have  heard  of 
the  Haymarket  affair,  and  from  what  I  have  heard  and  read  have  formed 
an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of  the  murder  of 

43  Degan,  which  opinion  I  still  have,  and   which  is  a  firm  opinion.      I  think 


(73) 

VOL.  D. 

such  opinion  would  not  influence  my  verdict.     I  knew  officer  Degan  for 

45  several   months   before  he  was  killed;  knowing   him,  what  I  heard  and 
read  caused  me  td  form  a   very  strong  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the 
guilt  or    innocence  of  these    defendants,  or  some  of  them,  which  I  still 
have  and  have  expressed  to  others.      I  believed  what  I  heard  and  read, 
and    based  my  opinion  on  that  belief;  I  have  stated  that  what  I  heard 

46  and  read  I  believed,  and  I  did  in  fact  believe  the  accounts  as  published 
and    have  so  stated   repeatedly,   and   at  the  same  time  told  others  my 
opinion. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:      I  got  an  opinion  from  what  I  read,  which  I 

47  expressed;    I  did  not  say  to  anybody  that  I  believed  what  I  read;    I  did 
believe  it  but  I  didn't  say  so;  the  opinion  that  1  had  was  as  to  who  was 
responsible. 

48  To  the  Court:     I  have  never  had  any  discussion  as  to  the  truth  of  the 
reports,  but  I  expressed  my  opinion  as  to  the  transaction  and  the  parties. 

48  To  Defendant's  Counsel:  I  didn't  understand  your  questions;    I   have 

49  expressed  my  opinion,  which  was  based  on  what  I  heard  and  read,  which 
I  believed,  more  what  I  heard  than  what  I  read,  and   I  told   others  what 
I  had  heard;  knew  officer  Degan;  I  stated  toothers  that   I  believed  what 
I  had  heard,  but  did  not  state  that  I  believed  what  I  read;  I  stated  to  oth- 
ers that  I  believed  what   I  had  heard,  and  gave  them  my  opinion;    there 
is  no  mistake  about  this;  I  said  to  others  that  I  believed  what  I  heard. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

To  the  Court:     I  have  heard  the  Haymarket  transaction  talked  of, 
51          but  I  never  told  anybody  that  I  believed  the  newspapers  had  got  the 
story  straight,  nor  that  I  believed  that  I  had  got  the  story  straight  from 
any  one  who  talked  with  me. 

53  To  defendant's  counsel:     My  opinion  was  largely  formed  from  what 
I  heard;  in  communicating  that  opinion  to  others   I  said   that  I  believed 
what  I  had  heard;  there  is  no  mistake  about   this;  I  told  them  also  my 
opinion  which  was  based  on  what  I  heard  and  read. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

54  To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I  told    others   in  discussing   the  matter  with  them 

55  what  I  had  heard,  and  expressed  my  opinion,  but  I  did  not  say  that  I  be- 
lieved every  word  or  any  particular  word  that  had  been  told  me. 

To  the  Court:  Don't  remember  who  first  told  me  about  the  transac- 
tion— I  may  have  talked  with  a  dozen  or  two;  I  have  never  said  anything 
as  to  whether  I  thought  they  got  the  story  straight. 


(74) 

VOL.  D. 

56  To  defendants'  counsel:     I  heard  the  story  from   several   parties,  but 

57  cannot  give  the  names,  and  discussed   the   matter  with  a  good  many;  I 

58  formed  my  opinion  from  what  I  believed  of  what  I  heard,  and  repeated 

59  to  others  what  had  been  told  me  or  part  of  it,  but  did  not  tell  them  that 

60  I  believed  what  I  had  heard;  I  did  believe  it,  but  did  not  say  so;  I  told 
others  in  talking  with  them  I  believed  what  I  heard,  but  did  not  narrate 
the  story  fully;  I  am  sure  that  I  did  tell  them  that  I  believed  what  I  had 
heard  in  my  conversation  with  different  ones. 

61  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants;  chal- 

lenged peremptorily.) 

62-65  A.  H.  Newman,  printer,  publisher  and  dealer  in  merchandise;  exam- 
ined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

66,67  Kenneth  Chisholm,  dry-goods  salesman;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

68-72  J.  F.  Dietrich,  manufacturer  of  shirts;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

73>  74  Jonn  Ashbury,  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

75,  76  David  Allard,  hat  and  fur  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

77,  78  C.J.  Easterly,  gents' furnishing  goods;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

79  George  F.  Baker, in  the  employ  of  Carter,  Hall  &  Co.,  tea  importers; 
have  heard  and  read  about  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  have  formed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of  the  murder  of 
Degan,  which  I  think  I  have  expressed  to  others,  and  which  I  still  enter- 
tain; it  would  be  a  very  firm  opinion  "  unless  contradicted  by  very  strong 

80  evidence";  it  would  take  very  strong  evidence  to  overcome  my  opinion, 
and  I  would   start  off  with  a  verdict  in  my  mind  for  the  reason  that  my 
opinion  is  so  strong. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I  have  an  opinion  now  which  I  should  be  very  apt 
to  carry  with  me. 

81  To  defendants  counsel:  My  opinion  would  stay  with  me  until  evidence 
was  introduced  to  carry  it  away;  it  would   remain  with    me   until   over- 
come by  the  evidence;  but  I  don't  think  it  would   bias   my  judgment;  I 

82  think  I  have  expressed  this  opinion  to  others;  it  would  remain  unchanged 
until  overcome  by  evidence. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants;  challenged 
peremptorily.) 


(75) 

VOL.  D. 

83  Magnus  A.  Hess,  printer:     Examined   by   defendants;    challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

84-89  J.  R.  Adams,  importing  commission  merchant:  Examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenged  for  cause,  the  juror  stating  that  he  believed  his  opinion 
or  prejudice  would  prevent  him  rendering  an  impartial  verdict. 

In  the  examination  of  this  juror  the  following  occurred:  "The  COURT: 
Q.  Do  you  believe  that,  after  you  have  heard  all  the  evidence  that  can 
be  presented,  or  that  shall  be  presented  on  each  side — examination  and 
cross-examination — that  your  conclusions  then  as  to  what  is  the  truth  will 
be  at  all  affected  by  what  people  have  said  or  written  about  it  before  you 
heard  any  testimony?  Do  you  believe  that  your  conclusions  as  to  what 
that  evidence  proved  or  failed  to  prove  will  be  at  all  affected  by  what 
anybody  has  ever  said  or  written  about  that  matter  before?  A.  I  believe 
it  would. 

"The  COURT:     It  is  incomprehensible  to  me." 

(To  which  remark  of  the  court  objection  and  exception  was  taken. 
Challenge  for  cause  allowed.) 

90,91  H.  A.  Butcher,  clothing  merchant:  Examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

92-94  F.  J.  Poole,  dry-goods  merchant:  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

95  H.  Grass,  knit-goods  salesman:     Examined  by  defendants;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

96,97  Edward  Bayless,  general  house  furnishing  goods:  Examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

98,99  H.  M.  Caswell,  manufacturer  of  mirrors:  Examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

99^-101  •  G.  W.  Carpenter,  butcher:  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

102,103  Henry  Allers,  grocer:  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

104-8  and  127-8  Frank  Pike,  boot  and  shoe  dealer:  Examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

109,110  W.  G.  Phillips,  retail  furniture  dealer:  Examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

in,  112  G.  W.  Snow,  flour  and  feed  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

113-117  Thomas  McCoy,  hardware  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged premptorily. 


(76) 

VOL.  D. 

118,119  J.  H.  Jones,  boot  and  shoe  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

120-6, 134  148-9,  213  Frank  Hoffman,  cigar  and  confectionery  store;  excused 
by  agreement. 

129-30  E.  D.  Morse,  livery-stable"  keeper;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

131-3  Thomas  F.  Smith,  in  the  paper  and  decorating  business;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenged  premptorily. 

135-6  Joseph  Buchanon,  hardware  and  furnace  dealer;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

137-9  R.  B.  Marsh,  market  keeper;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

140-41  John  Kellar,  in  the  crockery  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

142-3  William  Hutchins,  employed  by  the  St.  Nicholas  Toy  Company;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

144-7  Henry  Higgins,  furniture  salesman;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

150-1  Gustav  Haubold,  cigar  store  and  factory;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

152-9  John  D.  Osgood,  employed  by  Carson,  Pirie,  Scott  &  Company,  dry- 
goods;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

160-1  Edward  Riley,  keeper  of  a  fruit  store;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

162-5  Jacob  B.  Breese,  dealer  in  investment  securities;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

166-174  William  Biggs,  boot  and  shoe  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

175-6  A.  S.  Montgomery,  painter  and  paper-hanger;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

177-9  Charles  A.  Gaines,  shipping-clerk  for  H.  W.  Wetherell;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

180-2  A.  B.  Vandervoort,  a  lawyer  by  profession,  but  not  in  practice;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

183-4  William  E.  Taylor,  real  estate  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

185-190  Robert  C.  Griswold,  hay  and  seed  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  from 
what  he  had  heard  and  read,  which  opinion  he  still  entertained  and  had 


(77) 

VOL.  D. 

expressed  to  others.  "  Don't  think  that  opinion  would  affect  my  verdict, 
chosen  as  a  juror;  I  could  try  to  form  my  opinion  according  to  the 
evidence." 

189  "  Q.     Do  you  believe  that  you  could  lay  the  opinion  that  you  have 
aside,  and  act  upon  the  sworn  testimony  and  the  charge  of  the  court?" 

(Question  refused  by  the  court  and  exception  by  defendants.) 

190  Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

191  George  M.  Porter,  grocer:     Read  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  every 
day  since  it  occurred;  have  formed   an  opinion  on  the  question  of  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  of  the  murder  of 

193  Mr.  Degan  from  what  I  have  heard  and  read;  have  expressed  that  opin- 
ion; talked  the  matter  over  in  the  store  a  great  many  times;  it  is  as 
strong  as  could  be  from  reading  the  papers;  think  it  would  take 
more  evidence  if  I  were  sitting  as  a  juror  than  if  I  had  never  read 
about  it;  my  present  opinion  would  bias  my  judgment,  I  think.  I  would 
try  to  go  by  the  evidence,  but  I  think  what  I  have  read  would  have  a 
great  deal  to  do  with  it — that  it  would  require  more  evidence  or  less, 
according  to  my  present  opinion,  to  establish  a  given  fact,  so  that  my 

193  mind  is,  to  begin  with,  biased;  it  certainly  is  biased  now,  "  and  it  would 
take  a  good  deal  of  evidence  to  change  it;   would   try  to  go  by  the  evi- 
dence." 

Challenged  for  cause. 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:  Know  the  rule  of  law  as  to'  the  question  of 
guilt  being  determined  by  the  evidence  and  not  upon  newspaper  reports 
or  conversation;  I  know  nothing  of  this  case  except  what  I  have  read, 
and  would  try  to  be  governed  by  the  evidence  if  taken  as  a  juror,  re- 
gardless of  my  present  opinion;  still,  I  am  pretty  strongly  prejudiced 

194  now,  though   I    would    try   to   give   every  man    the   benefit   of  a  doubt; 
would  try  to  determine  the  question  on  the  evidence  alone — rather  think 
I  could  do  so,  regardless  of  my  present  opinion. 

195  To    the   Court:      As   to    determining  the  question   on    the   evidence 
alotie,  "  I  think  what  I  have  read   and    heard  before   I    came   into  court 
would  have  some  influence  with  me;"  don't  know  as  it  would  influence 
my  conclusion;  understand  that  it  would  be  my  duty  to  render  a  verdict 
according  to  the  evidence,  but  I  am  afraid  that  what   I   have  heard  and 
read  and  mv  present  opinion  would    affect  the   verdict    I    would   render; 
still  I  think  I  could  fairly  and  impartially  try  the  case,  taking  the  evi- 

196  dence  as  my  guide — I   certainly  would  try  to.      Have   no  personal  ac- 
quaintance with  the  defendants,  nor  any  feeling  against   them,  "  except 
what  grows  out  of  what  I  have  heard  and  read  about  it." 


(73) 

VOL.  D. 

198  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  to  which  defendants  except.) 

To  defendant's  counsel:  Don't  know  any  policemen  who  were  at  the 
Hay  market,  and  have  not  conversed  with  any  who  were  there;  have  a 
prejudice  against  socialists,  anarchists  and  communists,  though  I  have 
never  investigated  and  don't  really  know  what  they  are;  don't  know  that 
this  prejudice  would  influence  my  verdict,  but  I  am  prejudiced  against  any 

200  thing  of  that  kind,  and  have  so  expressed  myself  a  great   many  times;  I 
would  try  to  go   by  the  evidence  "but  I  think  in  this  case  it  would  be 
awful  hard  work  for  me  to  do  it."    I  would  try  very  hard  to  and  believe 
I  could — that  I  could  lay  aside  my  present  views  and  be  governed  by  the 

201  testimony.     I  have  frequently  expressed  my  opinion  based  on  my  belief 
in  what  I  read  and  heard;  don't  know  that  I  ever  expressed  my  belief  of 
the  narrative,  but  I  do  "believe  what  I   read  in  the  papers — believe  that 
the  parties  are  guilty."  In  substance,  I  did,  in  discussing  this  matter,  state 

202  that  I  believed  what  I   had  read  and  my  opinion  was  governed  by  this 
belief. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

To  the  Court:  As  to  whether,  in  my  discussions  of  this  matter,  any 
question  was  made  as  to  the  truth  of  the  narrative,  "that  is  a  pretty  hard 
question  to  answer;  I  don't  know;  I  have  expressed  myself  as  believing 

203  it — believing  what  I  read  in  the  papers — believing  alike  the  story  and  the 
opinion — believing  it  just  as  I  read  it  in  the  papers."     Don't  know   that 
any  question  as  to  the  truth  of  the  narrative  was  ever  raised,  or  that  I 
ever  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  whether  the  newspapers  got  bodily  or  the 
substance  of   the  story  right;  don't  know   that   I   ever  did   express  an 
opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the  story  told. 

204  To  defendant's  counsel:  I  will  not  swear  that  I  did  not  state  my  belief 
in  the  truth  of  what  I  had  read — I  don't  remember  how  that  was. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants;  challenged 
peremptorily.) 

205-6  M.  A.  Crocker,  hardware  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

207-8  W.  G.  Watkins,  butcher  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

209-212  Mathew  Anderson,  plumber;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged 
peremptorily. 

214-217  George  F.  Kimball,  plate  glass  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 


(79) 

VOL.   D. 

218-224  A.  N.  Warner,  dry  goods;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

225-6  William  H.  Robinson,  flour  and  feed  merchant;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

227  Charles  Davidson,  meat  market;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

228-35  James  W.  Nye,  wholesale  hardware.;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

236-41  Joseph  Roder,  iron  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

242  F.  D.  Slegel,  wire  goods;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

243-9       C.  H.  Walters,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremp- 

264       torily  by  defendants. 

250-1  George  E.  Copper,  coal,  lumber  and  wood  business;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

252-3  William  H.  Brackett,  hotel  keeper:  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

254-5  H.  C.  Smith,  boot  and  shoe  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

256-8  O.  W.  Folsom,  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

259  Andrew  Hamilton,  hardware  business;   have  heard   and  read  of  the 
Haymarket   meeting,  and   have  an  opinion  against  somebody  as  to  the 

260  murder  of  Degan,  but  don't  know  whether  these  parties  are  guilty;  read 

261  the  account  in  the  News  and  Tribune,  and  have  casually  followed  it  up; 
have  no  acquaintance  with  the  police  force;  think   I  could  try   the  case 
impartially  and  render  an  impartial  verdict;  don't  think  that   my  feeling 
that  somebody  ought  to  suffer  would  influence  my  verdict  unless  it  was 

263       proved  that  these  were  the  men.     Usually  attend  the  Baptist  church, 

359-61  but  am  not  a  member  thereof;  presume  I  have  said  that  some  one  ought 

to  be  made  an  example  of — whoever  was  responsible  for  the  Haymarket 

trouble;  don't  remember  distinctly  using  such   an    expression,  and  don't 

know   these  defendants  "except  once  in  a   while  seeing  their  names  in 

the  papers;  if  these  are  the  men   I   should  say  yes — if   it  is  proven  to  me 

that  these  are  the  men."     I   have  no  doubt  of  my  ability  to  try  this  case 

fairly. 

365  To  Mr.  Grinnell:     Think  I  could  try  this  case   upon   the  proofs   pre- 


(8o) 

VOL.  D. 

sented,  without  reference  to  any  opinion  I  now   have;  do  not  know  any 

366       of  the  defendants  or  either  counsel. 

265-8  L.  D.  Tuttle,  hardware  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

269-70  George  M.  Balling,  furniture  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

271  Peter  Simon,  printer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

272-3  Richard  E.  Lyman,  vegetable  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

274-8  Arthur  Wallen,  dry  goods;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  per- 
emptorily. 

279-80  W.  H.  White,  residence  3623  Prairie  avenue,  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

281-2  J.  E.  Rider,  chiropodist,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

283-6  L.  M.  Smith,  real  estate  and  renting  business,  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

287-8  E.  R.  Williams,  watchmaker  and  jeweler,  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

289-90  George  Walter,  butcher,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

291-2  Theodore  A.  Gehrmann,  grocer,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

•  • 

293-7  M.  C.  Bryant,  clerk,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremp- 
torily. 

298-9  Robert  Renshaw,  painter,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

300-2       Edward    D.    Murray,  hardware    merchant,  examined   by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

303  S.  H.  Brown,  grocer,  examined   by   defendants;    challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

304  E.  H.  Martin,  book-keeper  in  the  insurance  business:     Have  read  and 
heard  of  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  have  formed   and   expressed    an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  upon  the  charge  of 

305  the  murder  of  Degan;  do  not  think  that  would   influence    my   verdict; 

306  read  of  the  occurrence  in  the  Daily  News  and  the  Tribune  at  the  time; 
formed  an  opinion  concerning  the  guilt  or  innocence   of   the   defendants; 


VOL.    D. 

307  I  believed  what  I  read  to  be  true,  and  have  stated  my  opinion  to  others; 
I  suppose  that  I  stated  also  my  belief  that  what  I  had  read  in  the  papers 
was  true — no,  what  I  mean  is  that  I  formed   my  opinion   from    what    I 

308  read  and  believed  to  be  true,  and  stated  my   opinion   based  on    what    I 
read  in  the  papers,  and  I  said  that  I  based  it  on  what  I  had  read;  and  I 
still  believe  to  be  true  what  I  so  read. 

(Challenged    for    cause;  challenge  overruled,  and   exception;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

309  J.  Daniels,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge   for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

310  W.  G.  Hullhorst,  bookkeeper;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed.- 

311  H.  M.  Smith,  hardware   merchant;  have  formed   and  expressed   an 
opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt   or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of 
the  murder  of  Mr.  Degan,  but  don't  think  that  would  prevent  my  render- 
ing an  impartial  verdict;  I    read  the   newspapers   at  the   time  and   had 
quite  a  number  of  conversations  in  reference  to  the  matter  and  formed 
quite  a  decided   opinion,  which   I  still  have.     I   don't   know  whether  I 

312  would  listen  to  the  testimony  impartially — am   afraid   I   would  listen  to 
what  supported  my  opinion  a  little  more  intently  than  to  what  attacked 
it — "  I  would    be  willing  to  have  my  opinion  strengthened,  and    would 
hate  very  much  to  have  it  dissolved."     I  do  not  believe  I  could  render  a 
fair  and  impartial  verdict — "  I  think  I  would  be  prejudiced,  because  my 
feeling  is  very  bitter."     I  would  render  my  verdict  according  to  the  tes- 
timony, if  possible,  but  I  suppose  my  mind  is  prejudiced  and  I  think  my 

313  prejudice    would   influence  me  in  arriving  at    a  verdict;  "  think  it   would 
take  less  testimony  as  a  juryman  to  come  to  the  conclusion  which  I  now 
have  than  to  come  to  an  opposite  conclusion;  that  is    my  best  judgment 
now." 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:  I  think  I  could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants  upon  the  proof  alone,  regardless  of  what  I  have  heard  or 

314  read — they  are  to  be  judged  by  the  evidence;  understand   it  is  the  duty 
of  a  juror  to  listen  to  the  testimony  and  be  governed  by  that  alone,  and  I 
think  I  can  do  that. 

To  the  Court:  Have  no  personal  acquaintance  with  the  defendants. 
"  I  have  a  personal  feeling;  some  of  the  officers  were  personal  friends 
of  mine;"  but  I  have  no  feeling  towards  any  of  the  defendants  other 
than  what  is  based  on  what  I  have  heard  or  read;  have  talked  with  per- 


(82) 
VOL.  D. 

sons  who  were  at  the  Haymarket,  but  not  as  to  these  special  defendants. 

315  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants.  Chal- 

lenged peremptorily.) 

316-18  W.  R.  El  well,  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

319-20  Willis  Powers,  clerk:  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  for  cause 
allowed. 

321-2  Leo  Austrian,  mirror  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

323-5  Peter  R.  Wright,  furniture  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

326  Samuel  Carson,  dry-goods  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 

lenge for  cause  allowed. 

327-33  David  Graham,  dry-goods  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

334-8  Edward  C.  Ruling,  out  of  business  at  present;  was  in  gents'  furnish- 
ing goods  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

339  Isaac  W.  Pinkham,  coffee  business;  have  heard  and  read  of  the  Hay- 
market  meeting,  and  have  an  opinion  on  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  in- 
nocence of  the  defendants,  which  I  have  expressed  to  others,  and  still  en- 
tertain.    Don't  know  that  that  opinion  would   influence  my  verdict,  "  if 

340  the  evidence  showed  that  I  was  in  error."     Of  course  I  have  an  opinion 
now.     Read  all  the  Chicago  papers;  think  I  could  listen  to  the  testimony 

341  and  render  an  impartial  verdict;  "  think  I  could  change  my  opinion  if  I 
saw  any  necessity  for  it,"  but  it  would  be  necessary  to  change  that  opin- 
ion, for  I  have  an  opinion    now,  and    the   evidence  would    have   to   show 

342  that  I  was  in  error.     As  to  acting  on  the  testimony  alone,  "  I   presume 
my  present  opinion  would  have  to  show  cause   why  to  change  it — my 
present  opinion  would  naturally  prejudice    me  slightly;"  don't  think  that 
would  prejudice  me  so  that   the  evidence  would  not   be  weighed;  my 

343  opinion  is  made  up  principally  from  what  I  read.     Should  try  not  to  be 
biased — believe  I  could  weigh  the  evidence — can't  say  more  than  that — 
can't  tell  till  the  time  comes.     "If  the  evidence   should   show  that  I  was 
in  error,"  I  would  lay  aside   my  present  opinion,  but  the  evidence  would 
have  to  show  that   I   was   in  error  before    I   would  change  my  mind — it 
would  take  testimony  to  overcome  my  present  opinion. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

344  To  Mr.  Grinnell:     Believe  I    can  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of 


(83) 

VOL.  D. 

the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court  alone,  regardless  of  my 
present  opinion,  or  of  what  I  have  heard  and  read. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily.) 

345~7  Henry  B.  Edwards,  carriage  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

348-9  K.  J.  Decatur,  wholesale  salesman;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

350-1  F.  A.  Smith,  carriage  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

352  Charles  A.  Ludwig,  wood  mantel  business;  have  heard   and   read  of 
Haymarket  meeting,  but  neither  formed  nor  expressed  an  opinion;  have 

353  a   prejudice  against  communists,  socialists   and  anarchists  from   what  I 
have  read,  but  don't  know    that   that  would  influence   my  verdict;  am 

357       book-keeper  for  Charles  L.  Page. 

Thereupon  defendants  tendered  to  the  state  Osborne,  Berg,   Hamilton 
and  Ludwig. 

363-4  August  Berg;  examined  by  Mr.  Grinnell:  Have  talked  about  this 
case  to  others  but  never  expressed  an  opinion  upon  it.  Was  born  twelve 
miles  north  of  Berlin.  Am  a  naturalized  citizen. 

367-391  (August  Berg  challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state;  objected  to  as 
'follows:  "August  Spies,  the  accused,  objects  to  any  further  per- 
emptory challenge  by  the  attorney  prosecuting  on  behalf  of  the 
people,  because  the  said  attorney  has  already  been  admitted  to 
and  has  exercised  against  this  accused  twenty  peremptory  chal- 
lenges, being  the  full  number  of  peremptory  challenges  allowed 
to  this  accused  under  the  statute,  and  in  the  exercise  of  such 
challenges,  has  excluded  from  the  jury  divers  jurors  who  were 
acceptable  to  and  accepted  by  this  accused,  to  wit:  R.  H.  Ashton, 
Sweet,  Freeman,  Martin,  Levy,  E.  L.  Melchior,  Charles  Michaelis 
and  Thomas  Sargent.") 
(The  same  objection  was  interposed  on  behalf  of  each  of  the 

defendants.) 

(The  objection  was  fully  argued  and  authorities  cited,  but  was  over- 
ruled and  the  state's  peremptory  challenge  of  August  Berg 
allowed;  to  which  defendants  respectively  excepted.) 

392-3  Charles  H.  Ludwig  to  Mr.  Grinnell:  Know  of  nothing  to  prevent  me 
acting  impartially;  have  no  sympathy  with  any  class  of  individuals  who 


(84) 

VOL.  D. 

have  for  their  purpose   the  overthrow   of  the  law   by    force;  am  not  a 

socialist,  and  have  no  friends  who  are. 
394-7       Charles  H.  Curtis,  piano  business;  examined  by   state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

398-400  Morris  Cooney,  lithographer;  challenged  for  cause  by  state. 
401-2       Henry  Magnus,  laundry;  challenged  for  cause  by  state. 

403  Foster  Watling,  commercial  traveler.    Examined  by  state.    Have  read 

404  about  this  case  and  formed  an   opinion  as  to  the  guilt   or  innocence  of 
these  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  of  the  crime  of  murder,  which  was 

405  formed  from  what  I  have  read.     If  taken  as  a  juror  "  I  think  I  should  be 
very    much  prejudiced."     I  believed  a   great  part  of  what   I   read  and 
based  my  opinion   upon  it,  but   have   not  talked  with  any  one  who  was 

406  present,  and  only  knew  of  the  matter  from  my  reading.     As  to  whether 
I  am   prepared  to  hear  the  story  from  the  mouths  of  witnesses  and  de- 
termine the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants,  I  don't  know.     "  I  have 
a  pretty  strong  opinion  on  the  subject- — -it   would   take  very  strong  evi- 
dence to  change  it."     I  don't  think  I  would  convict  a  man   on  a  newspa- 
per report,  and  know  the  defendants  are  entitled  to  a  fair  trial,  the  ques- 
tion of  their  guilt  or  innocence   to  be  determined  by  evidence.     I  think, 

407  perhaps,  I  could  determine  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  these 
defendants  from  the  evidence  alone.     I  presume  I  could. 

Thereupon  counsel  for  the  state  tendered  to  defendants,  Osborn,  Ham- 
ilton, Ludwig  and  Watling. 

408  Mr.  Watling,  examined  by  defendants'  counsel:     My  opinion,  based 
on  what  I  have  heard  and  read,  "  would  have  great  weight  in  the  ver- 
dict" I  would  render — would  have  great  weight  in  weighing  the  testimony; 
don't  think  I  could  lay  my  opinion  entirely  aside. 

409  (Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. ) 

To  counsel  for  state:  I  think  the  defendants  are  responsible  for  the 
offense  committed  at  the  Haymarket  and  believe  that  opinion  would  influ- 
ence my  verdict. 

(Challenge  for  cause  allowed.) 

(Thereupon  defendants  asked  the  court  that  in  this  and  every  in- 
stance, the  state's  representatives  should,  in  the  first  instance,  be 
required  to  fill  the  panel  of  four  and  tender  them  to  defendants, 
which  motion  was  overruled,  and  defendants  excepted.) 

411  M.  D.  Flavin;  engaged  in  the  marble  business;  interior  decorations  of 

marbles  etc. ;  have  read  and  heard  about  the  Haymarket  affair,  and  formed 


(85) 

VOL.  D. 

an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence   of  the  defendants  of  the  murder 

412  of  Degan,  which  stands  pretty  strong  yet,  which   I  still   entertain   and 
which  I  believe  I  have  expressed  to  others;  one  of  the  officers  killed  was 

413  a  relative  of  mine — Officer  Flavin,  though   the   relationship  was  distant, 
and  for  this  reason  my  feeling  was   perhaps   different   than   from  what  it 

414  otherwise  would  have  been,  and   occasion    a  very  strong   opinion   in   my 
mind  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  some   of  them. 
I  stated  in  discussing  this  matter  with  others  that  I  believed  what  I  had 

415  heard  and  read,  not  so  much  what  I  had  read  as  what  I  had  heard;  I 
believe  I  expressed  the  opinion  that  what  I  heard  was  a  true  narrative. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:  I  read  the  accounts  of  the  Hay  market,  and  from 
what  I  heard  and  read  formed  an  opinion,  but  don't  suppose  that  I  ever 
told  anybody  in  substance  that  I  believed  the  story  that  I  had  heard  and 

416  read  was  a  true  story;  did  not  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the 
details. 

To  defendants'  counsel:     What  I  heard   had   more   to  do  with  mv 

417  opinion  than   what  I  read.      And  now,  I  don't  think  that  I  said  to  any- 
body that  I  did  believe  what  I  heard.     Mr.  Grinnell  is  a  neighbor  of 
mine;  I  have  known  him  quite  a  while,  four  or  five  years,  and  know  Mr. 

418  Ingham  by  sight.     I   have   no  doubt  I  could  give  a  fair  and  impartial 
verdict. 

419  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants. 
Challenged  peremptorily. 

420-9  M.  J.  Moth,  manufacturer  of  vacuum  pumps;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenged  peremptorily. 

430-4  Oscar  F.  Henning,  sail-maker;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

435-40  Cyrus  H.  Underwood,  salesman  for  American  Desk  and  Stool  Co.; 
examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

441-2  Charles  J.  Reed,  stockholder  in  American  Desk  .and  Stool  Co.  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

443-45  E.  E.  Page,  retail  cigar  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

446-8  Charles  Seberry,  dry-goods  salesman  with  Carson,  Pirie,  Scott  & 
Co.  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

449-50  W.  J.  Ellston,  book  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 


(86) 

VOL.  D. 

451-6       Rudolph    Deimel,  parlor  furniture  dealer;  examined    by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

457-8       R.   H.   Given,  Jr.,   book-keeper    for  J.  S.  Ford,  Johnson  &  Co.;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

459-60     Horace  E.  Bent,  grocers'  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

461-2       P.  A.  Bonfeig,  grocer;  examined   by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

463-8       Harry  H.  Johnson,   sign-writer;  examined  by    defendants   and    ten- 
dered to  the  state  with  Osborne,  Ludwig  and  Hamilton. 

469-72     Johnston  excused  by  the  state  and  challenged  peremptorily. 

(Objection   by  defendants  as  before;  overruled   by  the  court;  per- 
emptory challenge  allowed,  and  defendants  except.) 

473-6       G.  W.  Price,  confectioner  and  fancy  goods  dealer,  examined  by  state. 
Challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

477-8       R.  R.  Griffith,  in   the  plumbing  business;    examined  by  state;     chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

479-31     H.  H.  Tobias,  board  of  trade  operator;  examined  by  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

482-7       R.  W.  Sweet,   wholesale  dealer    in  cigars;    examined   by   the   state; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

(Same    objection   and   exception   as  before  in   behalf  of  each   de- 
fendannt.) 

488-9       Andrew  Scherer,  druggist,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

490-3       George  Beeber,  shoe  business,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

494-6       Gustav  Burkhardt,  cornice  manufacturer,  examined  by  the  state;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

497-9       Ed    Heffenon,  wholesale   hat   business,  with    Edson,  Keith  &  Co.,  ex- 
amined by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

500-3        Edward  J.  Madden,  in  charge  of  telegraph  department  for  Armour  & 
Co.,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

504-5       J.  M.  McCullough,  board  of  trade  speculator,  examined  by  the  state; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

506-9       David  J.  Whittaker,  book-keeper,  examined  by  the   state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

510-11      R.  Berryman,  boot    and   shoe    manufacturer,  examined    by  the   state; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 


(87) 

VOL.  D. 

512-15     Hugh  Williams,  grocer,  challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 
516—18     Smith  Crookes,  shoemaker,  challenged  for  cause  by  the  state. 
519-520     Charles  Poorschman,  engaged  with  Clybourne  &  Smith,  retail  meat 

dealers,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
521-4       R.  S.  T.  Barrett,  manufacturer  of  car  springs,  examined  by  the  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

525-7       Thos.  W.  Shaughnessy,  hardware  dealer, examined  by  the' state;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 
528-31     Fred    Heide,  livery   business,  examined  by  the  state;    challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 
531^-33     M.  Kaeper,  brush   manufacturer,  examined   by  the  state;   challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 
534-5       August  Afton,  clerk  for  E.   R.  Steck,  hardware;  examined  by  the 

state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
536-7       William   P.   O'Cock,  grocer  and  meat  market  keeper;  examined  by 

the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
538-40     Otto  Redlich,   manufacturer  for    Redlich  Manufacturing    Company; 

examined  by  the  state ;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
541-2       Thomas  C.  Peimington,  treasurer  Chicago  City  Railway  Company; 

examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
543-8       William  H.  Miller,  lumber  broker;  examined  by  the  state;  challenged 

peremptorily;  challenge  allowed,  and   same   objection,  and  exception  by 

defendants,  respectively,  as  before. 
549-52       James   T.   Vickery,   grocer;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 
553-5       John  W.   Carter,  carriage  manufacturer,  with  C.  R.  Kimball  &  Co.; 

examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
556-7       David  Fisch,   furniture  dealer;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 
558-60     M.  J.   Brown,  Thos.   H.  Brown    &  Son,  Novelty  Carriage   Works; 

examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
561-2       Maxwell  M.  Jones,  corresponding  clerk  with  Libby,  McNeil  &  Libby; 

examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

563-4        William    Wendland,   of  Wendland  Bros.  &    Doose,  truck    manufac- 
turers; examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
565-8       William  Meade,  shipping  clerk  for  Boyington  Folding  Bed  Company; 

examined  by  the  state;  challenged  peremptorily;  challenge  allowed. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  in  behalf  of  each  defendant  as  before. ) 
569-71     Peter  Malzen,  grocer;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge   for  cause 

allowed. 


(88) 

VOL.  E. 

1-4  Daniel  J.  Burke,  meat  market  business;  examined  by  state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

5-8  George  W.  Winslow,  clerk  in  stationery,  tobacco  and  cigar  store;  ex- 

amined by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

9,  10  John  W.  Heal,  manufacturer  of  furniture;  examined  by  state,;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

12-14  John  W.  Kneale,  soap  manufacturer;  examined  by  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

15—18  J.  H.  Kennedy,  carpenter,  doing  business  for  himself;  examined  by 
state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

19,  20  George  Baker,  clerk  in  coal  office  of  Baker  Brothers;  examined  by 
state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

21,22  Isidore  Lotenstein,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

23  J.  T.  Ruth,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

24,25  C.  H.  Blackman,  commission  merchant  on  board  of  trade;  examined 
by  state;  accepted  and  tendered  to  defendants. 

26-32  Mr.  Blackman,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
(Defendants  moved  that  the  state  be  required  to  tender  four  jurors, 
the  panel  of  four  having  been  broken;  motion  overruled,  and  ex- 
ception.) 

33-37  A.  A.  McKay,  board  of  trade  speculator;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

38,  39  T.  D.  Endesly,  deputy  probate  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

40-42  D.  H.  Dickinson,  wholesale  marble  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

44-47  D.  S.  Wheeler,  member  Chicago  Board  of  Trade;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

48  William  F.  Peirronet,  board  of  trade  commission;  examined  by  de- 

fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

49-53  Daniel  B.  Gardner,  real  estate  owner  and  dealer;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

54-56  Daniel  Reily,  board  of  trade  grain  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

57  V.   Serveny,  hardware  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

58  Fred  Gillman,  music  teacher;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 


(89) 

VOL.  E. 

59-65  George  E.  Felton,  hosiery  business,  and  former  clerk  of  the  Chicago 
House  of  Correction;  examined  by  defendants;  admitted  that  he  had 
formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  in  the  case;  challenged  peremptorily  by 
defendants. 

66,67  A.  W.  Walroth,  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

68  J.  W.  Barker,  contracting  car-builder;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

69  Charles  H.  Dahl;  examined   by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

70  D.  A.  Lang,  dry-goods  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

71  G.  W.  Zeiger,  in  the  butchering  business;  examined   by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

72,  73  N.  C.  Gram,  a  butcher  since  he  was  fourteen  years  old;  not  natural- 
ized; examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

74  Gustav  Jaeger;  unable  to  speak  English.     Excused. 

75  J.  C.  Wendt;  in  the  butchering  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

76  Charles  Stilling,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

77,78       Anton  Deiden,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed.  * 

79-82  Charles  Carlson,  restaurant  keeper;  examined  bv  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

83-87  Olaf  Dahling,  house  trimming  and  cabinet-making  business;  member 
of  cabinet  makers'  union;  examined  by  defendants;  accepted  and  ten- 
dered to  the  state. 

88  Mr.  Dahling  excused  peremptorily  by  the  state  without  examination. 

(Objected  to  on  behalf  of  each  defendant;  objection  overruled  and 

exception.) 
89-91       John  Collins,  a  laborer; examined  by  state;  excused  peremptorily. 

(Objection  by  each  defendant;  objection  overruled,  and  exception.) 
92,93       Henry  Wieland,  clothier;  examined  by  state;  accepted   and   tendered 

to  defendants. 

94-97       Said  Wieland  examined  by  defendants;  challenge   for  cause  allowed. 
(Motion  by  defendants'  counsel  that  stale  be  required  to  tender  four 
jurors;  motion  overruled,  and  exception.) 


(90) 

VOL.  E. 

98,99  Jacob  Helmke,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

100  F.  T.  Chiniquy,  boot  and  shoe  merchant;  examined  by  defendants; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

101,  102  Martin  Costigan,  coachman  for  J.  C.  McMullen,  vice-president  Chi- 
cago and  Alton  railroad;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

103—4  Henry  Hecht,  grocer:  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

105-13  A.  C.  Wehrle,  assistant  teacher  National  Institute  of  Pharmacy:  Ex- 
amined by  defendants;  accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state. 

114-16     Mr.  Wehrle  examined  by  the  state;  challenged  peremptorily. 

(Objection    by  defendants   respectively,  same   as  before;  objection 
overruled,  and  exception.) 

117-21  Fred.  F.  Sherman,  clerk  in  west  town  assessor's  office:  Examined  by 
state;  challenged  peremptorily. 

(Objection  and  exception  by  each  of  the  defendants  as  before.) 

122-24  Matthias  Kaiser,  grocer:  Examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

125-7  Conrad  G.  Warnecke,  employed  in  the  post-office:  Examined  by  the 
state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

123-33  Thomas  Dyche,  freight  inspector  south-western  freight  pool:  Exam- 
ined by  state;  accepted  and  tendered  to  defendants. 

134  Mr.  Dyche  peremptorily  challenged  by  defendants. 

135-6  A.  C.  Slay  ton,  retail  grocer:  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

134-43  C.  W.  Zimmerman,  traveling  dry-goods  salesman:  Examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

144-6  Carl  John  Mortinson,  manufacturer  of  carriages:  Examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenged  peremptorily. 

147-51  C.  B.  Kinley,  manufacturer  of  baby  carriages:  Examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

152-4  George  Fraser:  Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

155-61  W.  H.  Stewart,  ex-deputy  west  town  assessor:  Examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

162-7  J°hn  Klein,  saloon  and  restaurant  keeper:  Examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 


(9O 

VOI/.  E. 

168,9       H.  M.  Moody,    retail   boots    and    shoes:     Examined    by    defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

170-1        Claus  Nillson,  car  builder  for  Chicago   and  North- Western   Railroad 
Company:     Examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

172-5        Benedict  Messlein,  in  the  real  estate  business:     Examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenged  peremptorily. 

176-80     Henry  W.  Porter,  grocer  and  tea  merchant:  Examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

181-8  Andrew  Stark,  dry-goods  merchant:  Examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

189-94  Robert  Ellis,  shipping  clerk  for  Whitman  &  Barnes  Manufacturing 
Company;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

195-6  James  McGinn,  boot  and  shoe  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

197-202  James  E.  Kells,  machinist  and  engineer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

203-5  D.  O.  Wilkie,  city  building  inspector;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

206-7  W.  R.  Dowb,  tobacconist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

208-9  D-  C.  Loveland,  bookkeeper  for  M.  C.  Frederickson  &  Co.,  land 
dealers;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

2IO-U  M.  G.  Self,  book-binder  for  J.  L,.  Regan  &  Co.,  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

212  S.  L.  Self,  brother  of  last  panelman  and  store-keeper   of   Commercial 

Hotel;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

213-21  M.  D.  Rapp,  bookkeeper  for  County  clerk  and  in  the  Circuit  court, 
but  at  present  out  of  employment;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

222—3  William  J.  Barth,  clerk  for  Ellinger  &  Co.,  cloak  manufacturers;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

224-9  George  D.  Cornell,  employed  with  Crane  Bros.  Manufacturing  Co., 
examined;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

230-1        Winfield  N.  Sattley,  examined;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

232-4       William     C.    Dunwell,    stationery;    examined;     challenge    for    cause 

allowed. 

235-7  N.  Bruun,  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 


(92) 

VOL.  E. 

238-45  John  N.  Phillips,  in  the  employ  of  Marshall  Field  &  Co.,  wholesale 
hosiery  department;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

246-9  J.  P.  Huggins,  traveling  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

250-3  Henry  Tillottson,  hardware  business;  examined;  challenged  by  de- 
fendants for  cause;  challenge  allowed. 

254-6  David  Crawford,  floorwalker,  with  Charles  Gossage  &  Co.,  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

257-60  H.  G.  Brown,  bookkeeper  and  general  clerk  with  Mears  &  Co., 
lumber  dealers;  examined;  challenged  by  defendants  for  cause;  challenge 
allowed. 

261-2  Fred  Burkhardt,  grocer's  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

263-7  Alexander  W.  Pond,  assistant  manager  in  Dunlap  &  Co.'s  grain 
warehouse,  examined;  challenged  by  defendants  for  cause;  challenge 
allowed. 

268  (A  new  venire  being  about  to  be  called,  defendants  challenged  the 

array  on  the  ground  that  the  venire  was  not  properly  drawn  from 
the  jury  box;  challenge  to  array  overruled  and  exception  by  de- 
fendants.) 

268-70  John  Heide,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

271-2  Henry  Hackbaum,  in  the  rent  collecting  business;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

273-82  Edwin  A.  Potter,  wholesale  crockery  and  glassware:  examined  by 
defendants;  claimed  exemption  from  jury  service  on  the  ground  that  he 
was  captain  and  assistant  quartermaster  general  of  the  state  militia; 
claim  allowed  and  Mr.  Potter  excused. 

283-4  Henry  L.  Turner,  real  estate  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

285  H.  C.  Voute,  merchant  tailor;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

286-91  E.  Neville,  formerly  salesman  with  Carson,  Pirie,  Scott  &  Co.,  and 
later,  sleeping  car  conductor  for  the  New  York  Central  Sleeping  Car 
Company;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

292-3  Charles  R.  Ruggles,  buyer  for  Carson,  Pirie,  Scott  &  Co.;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

294-5  William  F.  Stewart,  assistant  secretary  People's  Gaslight  and  Coke 
Company;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 


(93) 

VOL.  E. 

296-300  F.  Par  Woodruff,  dry  goods  salesman  Carson,  Pirie,  Scott  &  Co.; 
examined;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

301-7  James  E.  Field,  buyer  for  Carson,  Pirie,  Scott  &  Co.;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

308  I.  P.  Freeman,  merchandise  brokerage  and  real  estate  brokerage;  ex- 

amined by  defendants. 

309,  310  (A  new  venire  being  about  to  be  issued,  defendants  moved  that  the 
special  bailiff  be  instructed  to  select  the  panelmen  from  the  jury 
list.  The  court  refused  to  give  any  instructions;  to  which  de- 
fendants excepted.) 

311-15  Upon  further  examination  of  Mr.  Freeman,  he  was  challenged  for 
cause  by  defendants,  and  the  challenge  allowed. 

316-26  Samuel  Baker,  corresponding  clerk  for  Spalding  &  Merrick,  tobacco 
factory;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

327-9  W.  T.  D wight,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

330-1  H.  C.  Ridgeway,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

332-4  A.  L.  Butler,  Chicago  agent  for  the  Crescent  Steel  Works  of  Pitts- 
burgh; examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

335-7  Thomas  Davies,  calciminer  and  house  painter;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

338-9  Edward  Biggs,  agent  for  Hoey  Bros.,  baking  powder,  extracts  and 
supplies;  excused  by  the  court,  not  .being  a  citizen  of  Illinois. 

340-1  Madison  B.  Whitford,  jeweler;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

343-4  H.  L.Thompson,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

345-8  O.  M.  Brady,  fire  insurance  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

349-51  J.  B.  Birchard,  hardware  merchant;  examined;  challenged  by  defend- 
ants for  cause;  challenge  allowed. 

352-4  E.  S.  Runyan,  shoe  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

355-6  Frederick  Katz,  shoe  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

356^  H.  C.  Wallace,  clerk  Phrenix  Fire  Insurance  Company;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 


(94) 
VOL.  il. 
357  C.  A.  Betyke,  grocer;  examined   by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

358-60  T.  W.  Zerberg,  real  estate  agent;  examined;  challenged  by  defend- 
ants for  cause;  challenge  allowed. 

361-2  J.  P.  Hoffman,  cashier  Northwestern  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Compa- 
ny's office;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

363-4  James  Caldwell,  shipping  clerk  Franklin  MacVeagh  &  Co.;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

365  A.  F.  Johnson,  commission   merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

366  H.  M.  Dermody,  painter  and  paper  hanger;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

367  Francis  Waikman,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

368  E.  A.  Holroyd,  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

369  J.  Husted,  dealer  in  ladies'  and  gents'  furnishing  goods,  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

370-1  Charles  A.  Morrell,  wholesale  shoe  merchant,  examined;  challenged 
by  defendants  for  cause;  challenge  allowed. 

372  F.  G.  Beehher,  coal  dealer,  examined   by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

373  William  Porter,  merchant  tailor,  "  614  West  Lake  street,  opposite  the 
police  station,"  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

374-5  John  Kleinman,  hardwood  lumber  salesman,  examined;  challenged  by 
defendants  for  cause;  challenge  allowed. 

376-7  L.  Samuel,  crockery  and  glassware  merchant,  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

378  Luke  Cassady,  retail  furniture  dealer,  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 

lenge for  cause  allowed. 

379-88  and  3803-3823  A.  W.  Beecher,  printer,  examined  by  defendants,  ac- 
cepted and  tendered  to  the  state;  excused  peremptorily  by  the  state; 
exception  by  defendants. 

3833-3843  Charles  Nicolai,  hardware,  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

3853-38933-390-1  C.  O.  Pratt,  furniture  business,  examined  by  st3te;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily;  exception  on  behalf  of  e3ch  defendant. 

392-6  William  J.  Bowman,  plumber  and  gasfitter,  exsmined  by  stste;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily;  subject  to  the  same  objection  by  defendants. 


(95) 

VOL.  E. 

397-9       Richard  A.  Brown,  cigar  and   tobacco  merchant,  examined   by  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

400-4  B.  L.  Ames,  hats  and  caps,  examined  by  state;  am  prejudiced  against 
socialists,  communists  and  anarchists — it  might  be  a  question  whether  I 
could  determine  the  matter  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
here  upon  the  proof  alone,  regardless  of  what  I  have  read  and  heard; 
think  1  might  determine  their  guilt  upon  the  evidence. 

Tendered  to  defendants. 

Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants  on  the  answers  given. 

To  the  Court:  Don't  think  I  can  fairly  and  impartially  hear  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case,  and  from  that  evidence,  with  the  instructions  of  the 
court,  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants. 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:     Think  I  may  be  prejudiced  from  what  I  have  read. 

405  To  Defendants'  Counsel:     Don't  know  that  I  could  listen  to  the  testi- 
mony and  return  a  verdict  on  that  alone,   uninfluenced  by  my  present 

406  opinion;  think   my  opinions  would    influence    me,   and   that  I,  perhaps, 
could  not  act  in  the  case  without  bias  or  prejudice. 

407  To  the  Court:     Don't  believe,  everything  considered,  that  I  could  sit 
as  a  juror,  listen  to  the  evidence,  and  from  that  alone  make  up  my  mind 
as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants;  don't   know   defendants, 

408  but  have  frequently  been  with  the  police;  don't  think    I   could   listen  to 
the  evidence  presented  and   make   up   my  mind  from   that  alone  as   to 
whether  it  proves  the  defendants'  guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt. 

The  COURT:  Q.  "  Why  not?  What  is  to  prevent  your  listening  to 
the  evidence  and  acting  only  upon  that?  Why  can't  you  listen  to  the  evi- 
dence and  make  up  your  mind  on  that?" 

(Exception  by  defendants  to  said  question.) 

A.  I  can,  I  suppose,  make  up  my  mind,  but  I  might  be  prejudiced 
just  the  same. 

Q.  Can  you  make  up  your  mind  whether  that  evidence  proves  beyond 
reasonable  doubt  whether  they  are  guilty,  or  does  not  prove  it?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  I  could  come  to  a  conclusion. 

Q.  Can't  you  do  that  impartially?  The  question  in  this  case  for  a 
juror  is,  not  what  he  may  think  will  be  the  effect  upon  his  mind,  as  to  his 
private  impressions,  suspicions  or  notions,  but  what  effect  the  state  of  his 
mind  will  have  on  his  verdict?  Will  your  verdict  be  influenced  by  any- 
thing other  than  the  evidence  in  the  case  and  the  instructions  of  the  court? 

A.     I  am  afraid  it  would  be  for  certain  reasons. 

Q.     You  do  not  believe  that  you  could   fairly  and  impartially  try  the 


(96) 

VOL.  E. 

case  and  render  a  verdict  on  the  law  and  the  evidence?     A.     I  don't  think 

I  could. 

409  (Challenge  for  cause  allowed.) 

By  Defense:  The  state  has  tendered  a  juror  held  by  the  court  to  be 
incompetent  and  we  claim  that  they  should  now  be  required  to  tender  us 
another  juror. 

(Motion  overruled,  and  exception.) 

410  George   Alles,  plumber;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

411-14     E.  Greenewald,  hardware  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  tendered 

to  the  state. 
415-18     Mr.    Greenewald,    examined    by  the  state  and    excused  peremptorily; 

exception  by  each  defendant. 
417-19     Frank    Lawson,  bar-tender,  examined    by  state;    challenge    for  cause 

allowed. 
421-23     Wallace   L.  Gilson,  grocer,  examined   by  state;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

424-26     Henry  T.  Miller,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed 
427-30     Henry  C.  Lands,  dry  goods  business;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 
431-3        Herbert  L.  Wilton,  dry  goods;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

434  H.  W.  Cole,  general  tradesman;  real  estate  and  other  property;  exam- 

435  ined  by  state;  have  formed  some    opinion  as  to  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 

436  defendants;  if  taken  as  a  juror  in  this  case,  I  might  be  a  little  prejudiced, 
but  should  probably  try  to  overcome  that — would  want  to  be  sure  a  man 
was  guilty  before  I  hung  him;  don't  know  any  of  the  defendants;  if  taken 

438       as  a  juror,  I   should   try  to  overcome  any  prejudice,  but  at  the  same  time 
I  might  be  a  little  prejudiced. 

440  Would  try  to  determine  the  case   upon  the  proofs  alone    regardless  of 
what  I  have  read  or  heard;  don't  know  whether  I  could  do  so,  but  think 
I  can. 

441  Tendered  by  the  state. 

Examined  by  defendants:  Am  not  in  good  health,  and  the  condition 
of  my  health  is  such  that  I  should  think  it  might  interfere  with  a  six 
weeks'  or  two  months'  jurj'  service. 

442  Have   talked  with  quite  a  good  number  of  policemen  about  this  case; 

443  have   conversed   with  policemen  a  little  who  were   at  the   Haymarket 
meeting,  and  undertook  to  narrate  what  occurred  there.     Mr.  Kramer 


(97) 

VOL.  E. 

444  was  one.     "  I  talked  with  Mr.  Wilson  after  he  got  out."     My  talk  with 
Wilson  was  recent.     I  saw  him  on  the  street  with  his  hand  done  up,  and 
asked  him  how  he  was  getting   along,  etc.     My  talk  with  Kramer  was 

445  within  a  day  or  two  after  the   trouble,  "  and  he  told  me  about  the  stam- 
pede and  all  those  things."     From  the  papers  and  from  all  sources  I  got 
the   impression   that   these   defendants  were  the  instigators  or  the  guilty 
parties  connected  with  the  throwing  of  the  bomb.     If  taken  as  a  juror, 
I  should  try  not  to  be  biased,  but  "  I  have  been  a  little   prejudiced."     I 

446  rather  think  I  could   give   defendants  a  fair  trial  under  the  testimony, 
448       "  but  I  don't  know  as  I  could."     I  should   try  not  to  allow  my  sympathy 

for  the  injured  policemen  to  influence  me,  and  don't  really  think  it  would. 

450  "  I  have  been  a  little  prejudiced."     Have  known  Capt.  Schaack  a  good 
many  years;  knew  him  in  the  past  quite  intimately.     I  have  expressed 
my  opinion  as  well  as  formed  it,  which   was  based  on   my  belief  in  the 
truth  of  what  I  read  and  heard.     I  did   believe  what  I  heard  and  what  I 

451  read,  at  least  sufficiently  to  form  an  opinion.     I  had  a  very  decided   and 
firm  opinion,  which   I   still   entertain   and    which  I  expressed  to  others; 

can't  say  whether  I  ever  said  to   others  that  I  believed  what  I  had  read 
I 

or  heard. 

Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants;  challenge  overruled,  and  exception. 
Challenged  peremptorily. 

452-3       Norman  Robinson,  florist,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

454-5       Fred     Eberhardt,     salesman,     with     Charles     Eieu    Johnson     Co., 
printers'  inks;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

456-8       Frank  Deiss,  dry  goods  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

459-65     Frank  Cardiff,  locksmith;  examined  by  defendants,  and  accepted. 

466-8       Tendered  to  the  state,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Grinnell. 

Excused  peremptorily  by  state;  exception  by  each  of  defendants. 

469-73     H.  W.  Duncanson,  jeweler;  examined   by   state;  challenged   peremp- 
torily; exception  by  each  of  defendants. 

474-6       Leonard  Gould,  wbod  and  willow-ware  dealer;  examined  by  state,  and 
tendered  to  defendants. 

477  Mr.  Gould  examined  by  defendants: 

Am  a  wholesale  dealer;  have  discussed  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and 
think  I  formed  a  pretty  decided  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
these  men.  Nothing  has  since  occurred  to  change  that  opinion,  and  I 
still  entertain  it. 


(98) 

VOL.  ti. 

478  "  Q.     Do  you  think  that  the  opinion  would   have  any  influence    upon 
your  mind,  if  you  should  be   selected   as   a  juror?     A.     Oh,   I   think    1 
could  be  persuaded.     I  think  I  could  listen   to   the  evidence,   whatever 
evidence  was  offered." 

Have  a  strong  opinion  against  socialism;  think   I  could  listen  to  the 

479  evidence;  I  don't  believe  I  could  be  governed  by  the  evidence  alone,  irre- 
spective of  present  prejudices,  opinions  and  conclusions. 

Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants. 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:     I  think  I  could  weigh   the  evidence  impartially,  but 

480  "  I  really  don't  know  that  I  could  do  the  case  justice; "  think  my  verdict, 
if  I  should  sit,  would  be  governed   by  the  testimony  alone. 

481  To  Defendants' Counsel:     I  admit  that  I  have  some  bias  and  prejudice 
in  this  matter.     If  I  were  to  sit  as  a  juror,  I  should  calculate  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  testimony,  but  it  is  a  hard  question  to  say  whether  I   could 
do  so,  uninfluenced  by  my  present 'prejudice  and  opinion. 

482  "  The  COURT:     The   question   is  not   whether  he  believes  he  can  act 
without  reference  to  his  prejudice.     The   question   under  the   statute  is, 
does  he  believe  that  he  can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  law  and  the  evidence?     Not  what  may  be  the    strug- 
gle or  preliminary  efforts  to  get  rid  of  all  bias,  but  whether   he   believes 
that,  in  coming  to  a  verdict,  he  can  render  a  verdict  fairly  and  impartially 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence." 

483  A.     Think  I  could  render  a  verdict  in  accordance   with   the  law   and 
the  evidence. 

By  the  DEFENDANTS:  "  Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  return  a 
verdict  under  the  evidence  and  proofs  and  the  charge  of  the  court,  and 
that  alone,  uninfluenced  by  any  opinion,  prejudice  or  feeling  that  you 
now  have? 

The  COURT:  "  You  are  asking  whether  he  himself  would  be  influ- 
enced; now,  the  influence  may  be  by  his  struggling  against  previous 
positions.  The  real  question  is  whether  he  believes  he  can  render  a 
verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  than  you  can  return  a  verdict  under  the  evidence 
and  the  proof  and  the  charge  of  the  court  and  that  alone,  uninfluenced 

484  by  any  opinion,  prejudice  or  feeling  that  you  now  have? 

The  COURT:  "  Whether  you  mean  the  verdict  uninfluenced  or  him- 
self uninfluenced  is  ambiguous;  if  you  mean  himself  uninfluenced,  that 
is  quite  a  different  thing  from  the  verdict  uninfluenced.  *  *  *  Un- 
less you  will  say  which  you  mean,  the  verdict  or  the  juror  uninfluenced, 


(99) 

VOL.  E. 

I  will  hold  that  the  question  is  not  proper,  because  it  is  an   ambiguous 

485  question.     I  rule  that  question  is  improper  on  the  ground  of  the  ambi- 
guity of  it." 

(Exception  by  defendants.) 
I  have  expressed  my  opinion  to  others;  the  opinion  was  based  upon 

486  a  belief  of  what  I  had  read  and   heard;  I  believed   the  truth  had  been 
stated  substantially;  I  did  not  state  to  others  that  I  believed  what  I  had 
read,  because  I  took  it  for  granted. 

"  Q.  I  want  to  ask  you  whether  you  believe  you  can  listen  to  the 
testimony  and  other  proofs  that  may  be  introduced  here  in  court,  and  the 
charge  of  the  judge,  and  render  an  absolutely  impartial  verdict  in  this 
case,  notwithstanding  your  present  opinion,  bias  or  any  prejudices  that 
you  may  have?  A.  Well,  that  is  the  same  question  over  again.  *  * 
I  answered  it  as  far  as  I  could  answer  it. 

"The  COURT:  You  can  tell  whether  you  can  answer  it  by  yes  or 
no?  A.  1  don't  know  whether  I  can  answer  it  by  yes  or  no. 

"  Q.  You  say  that  you  do  not  know  that  you  can  answer  that  either 
yes  or  no?  A.  No,  I  don't  know  that  I  can." 

Challenged  for  cause. 

487  To  the  Court:  In  a  general  way  I  think  I  could  listen  to  the  law  and 
the  evidence,  and  form  my  verdict  from  that. 

"The  COURT:  I  would  have  no  doubt  that  you  would  earnestly  wish 
to  render  such  a  verdict ,  as  the  evidence  proves  is  a  proper  verdict  to 
render?  A.  My  disposition  is  to  do  that. 

"  Q.  Now,  do  you  believe  that  you  can?  After  you  have  sufficiently 
reflected  upon  it,  so  as  to  examine  your  own  state  of  mind,  then  say  yes 
or  no?  A.  It  is  a  difficult  question  for  me  to  answer. 

"  Q.  Well,  make  up  your  mind  as  to  whether  you  believe  that  you 
can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law 
and  the  evidence.  Most  men  in  business  possibly  have  not  gone  through 

488  metaphysical  investigations  of  this  sort  so  as  to  be  prepared  to  answer 
offhand   without  some  reflection?     A.     Judge,  I  don't  believe  I  can  an- 
swer that  question. 

"  Q.  Can't  you  answer  whether  you  believe  you  know?  A.  I  could 
try;  if  I  had  to  do  it,  I  should  do  the  best  I  could. 

"  Q.  The  question  is  whether  you  believe  you  can  or  not.  I  suppose, 
Mr.  Gould,  that  you  know  that  the  law  is,  that  no  man  is  to  be  con- 
victed of  any  offense  with  which  he  is  charged,  unless  the  evidence 
proves  that  he  is  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt?  A.  That  is  true. 


VOL.  ti. 

"  Q.     The  evidence  heard  in  this  case  in  court?     A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  render  a  verdict  in  accordance 
with  that  law?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  I  could. 

" Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  can?  If  you  do  not  know  of  any 
reason  why  you  cannot,  do  you  believe  you  can?  A.  I  couldn't 
answer  that  question. 

"  Q.  You  can't  answer  whether  you  believe  that  you  can  or  believe 
that  you  can't?  Can't  you  say  either  that  you  believe  that  you  can, 
or  thatyou  can't?  A.  Well,  I  said  it  was  a  pretty  hard  question  for  me 
to  answer. 

"  Q.     Have  you  a  belief  one  way  or  the  other  as  to  whether  you   can 

or  cannot?     A.     If  I  were  to  sit  on  the  case  I  should  get  just  as  near  to 

489       it  as  possible,  but  when  it  come  to  laying  aside  all  bias  and  prejudice  and 

making  it  up  in  that  way,  it  is  a   pretty   fine   point — it  is  a   pretty  fine 

point  to  make. 

"  Q.  Not  whether  you  are  going  to  do  it,  but  what  do  you  believe 
you  can;  that  is  the  only  thing.  You  are  not  required  to  state  what  is 
going  to  happen  next  week  or  the  week  after,  but  what  do  you  believe 
about  yourself — whether  you  can  or  cannot?  A.  I  am  just  about 
where  I  was  when  I  started. 

"  Q.  Think  of  it  for  a  little  while  and  see  whether  you  cannot  make  up 
your  mind  as  to  what  you  believe  about  yourself  now.  It  is  not  that  you 
are  to  state  what  you  will  do,  but  what  you  believe  you  can  do — you 
believe  about  yourself — -what  you  think  you  can  do?  A.  Well,  I  be- 
lieve I  have  got  just  as  far  as  I  can  in  reply  to  that  question. 

"  Q.  I  haven't  heard  you  make  any  reply  to  that  question — -whether 
you  believe  that  you  can  or  that  you  cannot  impartially  and  fairly  render 
a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence?  A.  I  have  re- 
plied to  it  a  good  v,  hile  ago. 

"  The  COURT:  Q.  This  question,  naked  and  simple,  of  itself,  is:  Do 
you  believe  that  you  can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict  in  the 
case  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence?  A.  I  believe  I 
could." 

To  Defendants'  Counsel:  "  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  do  that  unin- 
fluenced by  any  impression,  prejudice  or  opinion  which  you  now  have? 
A.  You  bring  in  that  point  that  I  object  to,  and  I  don't  feel  quite  com- 
petent to  answer." 

(Challenge  for  cause  on  all  answers  renewed;  challenge  overruled, 
and  exception.     Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 


(101) 
VOL.   E. 

491-3  Charles  V.  Marsh,  agent  for  a  sugar  refinery,  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

494-6  A.  N.  Fuller,  wholesale  grocer,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

497  P.  C.  Hanford,  wholesale  paints  and  oils:  Have  formed  an  opinion 

from  what  I  read  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  de- 
fendants, or  some  of  them,  of  the  crime  of  murder  of  the  policemen, 
which  I  have  expressed  to  others;  don't  think  it  would  influence  my 

501  verdict.     The  opinion  which  I  have  formed,  expressed    and   still  enter- 
tain is  quite  firmly  fixed  in  my  mind. 

(Challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled,  and  exception.     Chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

502  S.  A.  Maxwell,  bookseller:     Have  heard  and  read  of  the  Hay  market 
meeting  and  have  formed  an  opinion  touching  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants  of  the  alleged  murder,  which  opinion  I  have  expressed  to 
others. 

"  Q.  In  your  opinion  now,  do  you  believe  that  opinion  or  conclusion 
would  prevent  your  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in  the  case  if  you 
should  be  selected  as  a  juror?  A.  I  don't  think  it  would,  provided 
their  innocence  could  be  established — provided  I  could  be  satisfied  that 
they  were  not  guilty." 

503  Think  I  could  act  on  the  evidence  uninfluenced  by  my  present  opinion. 
Have  a  prejudice  against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists. 

"  Q.  Now,  taking  all  prejudices  in  your  mind,  do  you  believe  that 
you  could  determine  this  case  absolutely,  entirely  and  only  upon  the 
proofs  produced  in  court  and  that  alone?  A.  Well,  I  think  my  preju- 
dice would  have  some  influence  with  me." 

504  Think  I  could  act  upon  the  proof  introduced  into  court  and  under  the 
charge,  uninfluenced  by  my  present  opinion.     I  have  now   "  a  very  firm 
opinion  "  as  to  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants, 
based  upon  what  I  read  and  heard.     I  believe  what  1  read  and  heard. 

505  In  a  general  way,  in  talking  over  the  matter,  I  have  stated  my  belief  in 
what  I  read  on  the  subject,  but  I  have  not  stated  that  I  did  believe  what 
I  read.     I  think  my  present  opinion  would  have  weight  in  the  consider- 
ation of  the  testimony  and  that  "  it  would  take  less  testimony  to  estab- 
lish   the    guilt  or   innocence   of  the   defendants  in    accordance    with  my 

506  present  opinion  than    upon  the  other  side."      Think   my  opinion  would 
have  a  great  deal  to  do  with  my  verdict. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 


(102) 
VOL.  E. 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:      I  would  try  to  determine  the  question  of  the  de- 
fendants' guilt  or  innocence  from  the  testimony,  to  the  best  of  my  abil- 
ity.    "  I  think  my  opinion  would  have  something  to  do  with  the  matter." 
To  the  Court:     I  think  I  could  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

(Challenged  for  cause;  overruled,  and  exception.) 

508  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

509-511   S.  A.  Tollman,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

VOL.  F. 

1-4  Isaac  S.  Collins,  wholesale  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

5-7  Charles  E.  Deane,  wholesale  grocer;  examined    by  defendants;  chal- 

lenge for  cause  allowed. 

8-10         J.  E.  Taylor,  of  Thompson  &  Taylor,  coffee  and  spices;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

11  H.  D.  Bogardus,  flour  and   fruit   merchant;  examined   by  defendants: 
Have  heard  and  read  of  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  from  what  I  have 
read  and  heard,  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants  of  the  crime  now  charged,  which  opinion  I  have  expressed 
to  others,  and  still  entertain;  it   certainly  would  influence  my  verdict  if 

12  selected  as  a  juror;  I  could  not  act  independent  of  the  opinion;  it  would 
"require  very  strong  proof  to  overcome  my  opinion.     It  would  be  in- 
fluenced by  it,  of  course,"  and  I  would  not  render  my  verdict  upon  the 
testimony  alone,  fairly  and  impartially. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To    Mr.    Grinnell:     I    have  talked    with  some  policemen   about  the 
Haymarket  affair,  but  whether  they  were  there  or  not,  I  do  not  know. 

13  I  have  heard  no  testimony  upon  the  matter.     I  would  be  influenced  as  a 
juror  by  my  prejudices  and  opinions  against  the  defendants;  "it  would 
require  very  strong  proof  to  overcome  it."     I  don't  believe  I  could  give 
them  a  fair  trial  upon  the  proof,  for  it  would  require  very  strong  proof 
to  overcome  my  prejudices;  "  I  hardly  think  that  you  could  bring    proof 

14  enough  to  change  my  opinion."     If  accepted  on  the  jury,  I  would  try  to 
do  my  duty  according  to  the  evidence,  and   might  do  so;  think  I  could 
do  my  duty,  "  but  it  would  require  pretty  strong  evidence  to  overcome 

15  my  prejudice."     Would  not  convict  without  some  evidence.     If  taken  as 
a  juror  in  this  case,  I  think  I  could  "  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants  upon  the  proof  produced  alone,      *      *      *      but  being 


(I03) 
VOL.  P. 

prejudiced,  it  would  take  very  strong  evidence  to  overcome   my  preju- 
dice." 

To  the  Court:  I  know  the  law  as  to  defendants  not  being  convicted 
except  upon  evidence  on  the  trial,  and  I  think  I  might  fairly  and  impar- 

16  tially  determine  whether   the   evidence  proved   that  they  are  guilty  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt,  "  but  it  would  require  pretty  strong  proof."     I 
can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict  in  this  case  in  accordance  with 
the  law  and  the  evidence,  I  think. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception,  but  ruling  withdrawn 

for  further  examination.) 
To  Defendants'   Counsel;  "  I  say  it  would  require  pretty  strong  testi- 

17  mony  to  overcome  my  opinion   at   the  present  time."     Still   I   think  I 
could  act  independent  of  my  opinion.     I   would  start   with  an  opinion, 
however,  and  "  I  think  that  the  preponderance  of  proof  would  have  to 
be  against  my  opinion   strong."     I  think  the  defendants  are  responsible 
for  what  occurred    at   the  Haymarket  meeting.     The  preponderance  of 
evidence  would  have  to  be  in  favor  of  the  defendants'  innocence  with  me. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

"The  COURT:  In  the  naked  question  of  whether  the  verdict  will  be 
controlled  only  by  the  evidence,  why,  Mr.  Bogardus'  first  answers  are 
all  right.  Now,  as  to  the  effect  of  his  opinions,  prejudices  and  bias, 
etc.,  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  For  example,  Mr.  Foster,  you 
won't  suspect  me  of  either  irony  or  flattery  when  I  say  that  I  believe 
if  you  were  impaneled  as  a  juror  at  Richmond  to  determine  whether 
Jefferson  Davis  had  made  war  against  the  United  States,  you  could  sit 
there  and  find  out  from  the  evidence  only,  and  all  that  you  know  about 
it  now  would  not  affect  the  verdict  to  be  given  upon  the  evidence. 

"Mr.  FOSTER:  No,  I  think  I  would  have  been  challenged  for  cause, 
and  if  that  had  not  been  sustained,  peremptorily,  perhaps. 

"The  COURT:  The  question  is,  what  will  the  verdict  be?  The  stat- 
ute says  that  if  a  man  says  that  he  believes  that  he  can  fairly  and  im- 
partially render  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence,  that 
then  the  formation  of  opinions  from  rumor  or  newspaper  statement  is 
not  a  ground  of  challenge;  of  course,  leaving  it  to  the  judgment  of  the 
tryer,  whether  that  belief  of  his  is  well  founded  or  not.  But  I  have  ex- 
pressed my  opinion  upon  that  part  of  the  case  here,  so  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  repeat  it.  Every  fairly  intelligent  and  honest  man,  when 
he  comes  to  investigate  the  question  originally  for  himself  upon  authen- 


(  104) 

VOL.  F. 

tic   sources    of   information,   will,  in   fact,  make   his  opinion    from    the 
authentic  sources  instead  of  the  hearsays  that  he  had  before." 
(Exception  to  the  ruling  of  the  court) 

20— 6  Upon  further  examination  of  this  talesman,  he  finally  stated  to  the 
court  directly,  that  he  would  find  the  defendants  guilty  unless  the  evi- 
dence was  very  strong  and  clear,  and  that,  if  evenly  balanced,  his  preju- 
dice would  condemn  them  (page  26) ;  and  thereupon  the  juror  was 
finally  discharged  from  the  panel  and  the  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

27-9  Frank  W.  Oliver,  wall  paper,  paints  and  oils;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

29-31  F.  S.  Sherman,  wholesale  teas,  coffees  and  spices;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

32-4  P.  J.  Toole,  wholesale  teas,  coffees  and  spices;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

35  James  H.  Walker,  dry-goods  merchant,  of  James  H.  Walker  &   Co.; 
examined  by  defendants.     Have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  in- 
nocence of  the  defendants  of  the  murder  of  Mr.   Degan,  which   I  still 
entertain  and  have  expressed  to  others;  don't  think   I  would  be  mflu- 

36  enced,  if  taken  as  a  juror,  by  my  present  opinion  "  more  than  any  intelli- 
gent man."     "  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  my  opinion  would   handicap 
my  judgment,  possibly."     At  the  outset  my  judgment  would  be  handi- 

37  capped  or  influenced  by  my  present  opinion.     Still,  I  should  expect  to  be 
governed  by  the  testimony.     I  don't  say  that  I  think  I  can   determine 
this  case  upon  the  testimony  alone,  uninfluenced  or  unbiased  by  my  pres- 
ent opinion.     "  I  would  be   handicapped."     I  believe,  however,  that  I 
could  render  a   fair  verdict  by  the  present    opinion.     "  Certain  impres- 
sions would  have  to  be  removed,  but  I  assume   that   the  testimony  you 

38  know  would  decide  whether  they  should  be  removed  or  not." 

39  I  am  prejudiced  against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists.     Upon 
the  trial  of  the   present  case,  "  if  the  testimony  were  equally  balanced, 
I  should  hold  my  present  opinion,"  and  I  suppose  that  that  opinion  would 
justify  me  in  convicting  them  if  the  testimony  were  equally  balanced.     I 
believe  it  would  do  so. 

(Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 

To  Mr.  GRINNELL:  Think  1  could  pass  upon  this  case  upon  the  tes- 
timonv  presented  in  court,  and  that  I  would  be  governed  by  the  law,  re- 
gardless of  the  opinion  which  I  now  have. 

To  the  COURT:     Understand  that  no  man  is  to  be  tried  on  private  im- 
41          pressions,  but  upon  evidence;  would  try  to  fairly  and  impartially  render 


VOL.  f. 

a  verdict  in   accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  the   case,  if 

taken  as  a  juror,  and  think  I  could,  "  but  I  should  feel  that  I  was  a  little 
handicapped  in  my  judgment." 

"  The  COURT:  Well,  that  is  a  sufficient  qualification  for  a  juror  in  the 
case.  Of  course,  the  more  a  man  feels  he  is  handicapped,  the  more  he 
will  be  guarded  against  it. 

"  Mr.  BLACK:     We  except  to  that  remark  of  the  court.     We   do  not 

42  think  it  is  in  accordance  with  observation  and  judgment  and  experience. 
We    think   it  is  an  improper  remark   to   make   in   the   presence  of  the 
jurors,  and  would  like  to  have  the   record   show  that  the   seats  are   full 
and  talesmen  present  at  the  time  the  remark  is  made." 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants.) 

W.   T,  Chandler,  wholesale  grocer;  examined  by  defendants:     Have 

43  formed  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  ac- 
cused, which  I  have  expressed  to  others  and  still  entertain ;  don't  think  it 

44  would  influence  my  verdict  as  a  juror.     I  am    prejudiced    against  social- 
ists, communists  and  anarchists,  but  think   I  would  not  be   influenced  by 

45  my  prejudices.     Have  been   in  a  slight   degree   affected  by  strikes;  our 
47         teamsters  struck  in  May  last.     I  had   a  slight  conversation  with  one  po- 
liceman who  was  present  at  the  Haymarket,  and  my  opinion  is  based  both 
upon  what  I  have  read  and  what  I  heard,  but  more   particularly,  I  should 
say,  upon  what  I  have  read.  From  what  this  policeman  told  me,  who  was 
present  at  the   meeting,  from  what  I  have  heard  from  others,  and  from 
what  I  have  read,  I  have  formed  a  decided  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  in- 
innocence  of  the   accused,  or  some  of  them,  which  I  have  expressed  to 
others  and  still  entertain. 

(Challenged    for  cause  by  defendants;    challenge    overruled,    and 

exception.) 

Further  examined:.!  have  expressed  to  others  my  belief  that  what  I 

49         had  heard  was  true,  and  that  what  I  had  read  was  true.     I  don't  mean 

that   I   expressed  my  conclusions  alone,  but  that  I  expressed  the  belief 

that  what  I  had  read  and  what  I  had  heatd  was  true.     I  passed  upon  the 

correctness  of  what  I  read  and  heard. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

To  the  Court:  I  don't  mean  that  I  said  anything  about  whether  the 
story  was  rightly  told;  "  what  I  mean  is  that  I  remarked  that  I  believed 
thut  the  statements  were  true."  I  never  said  anything  about  the  accu- 
racy of  the  report,  as  to  whether  the  newspapers  had  got  the  thing  in  the 
manner  in  which  it  occurred.  I  expressed  my  opinion,  based  upon  my 


VOL.  F. 

51         belief  in  the  truth  of  what  I  had   heard  and  read,  but  I  did  not  tell  any- 
body that  I  believed  the  narrative  was  true. 

(Said  challenge  for  cause  not  being  allowed,  the  said  W.  T.  Chand- 
ler was,  upon  peremptory  challenge  by  the  defense,  excused.) 
52-5         Jacob   Hirsch,  wholesale    clothing  dealer;  examined   by   defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

56  Rush  Patterson,  in  the  silk  department  of  Edson,  Keith  &  Co.:  Been 

working  for  Mr.  Keith  eleven  years;  had  read  and  heard  of  the  Hay- 
market  meeting  and  have  formed  an  opinion  touching  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  accused,  or  some  of  them,  of  the  murder  of  Mr.  Degan, 
which  opinion  I  have  expressed  to  others,  and  there  has  been  nothing 
since  to  change  it.  It  would  have  considerable  weight  with  me  if 
selected  as  a  juror.  "  It  is  pretty  deeply  rooted,  the  opinion  is,  and  it 
would  take  a  large  preponderance  of  evidence  to  remove  it."  Think  I 

58  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and  render  a  verdict  upon  that  alone,  unin- 
fluenced by  my  present  opinion.     Am  prejudiced  against  socialists,  com- 
munists and  anarchists.     I  still  think  it  would  take   a  preponderance  of 

59  evidence  to  remove   my  present  opinion.     I  should  naturally  take  the 
law  from  the  court  and  the  evidence  from    the    witnesses.     I    should 
give  the  defendants  the  benefit  of  a  reasonable   doubt   if  the  evidence 
were  equally  balanced,  but  to  some  extent  I  should  be  governed  by  my 

61  present    opinion.       My    opinion    is     based    more    upon    what   I    have 

62  read    than  what  I    have    heard.     "   It   would    require   the    preponder- 
ance   of    evidence    to    remove    the    opinion    I    now  possess."     "  I    feel 
like   every  other  good  citizen  does  feel,  a  feeling  that  these  men  are 
guilty;  we  don't  know  which.     We  have  formed  this  opinion  by  general 
reports   and   the  newspapers.     Now,  with   that   feeling,  it    would   take 
some   pretty  positive  evidence  to   make  me   think  these  men  were  not 
guilty,  if  I  should  acquit  them;  that  is  what  I  mean."     I  could  act  en- 
tirely upon  the  testimony;  "I  would  do  so  as  near  as  the  main  evidence 

63  would  permit  me  to  do."     Probably  I  should  take  the  testimony  alone. 

"  Q.  But  you  say  it  would  take  positive  evidence  of  their  innocence 
before  you  could  consent  to  return  them  not  guilty? 

"A.     Yes,  sir;  I  should  want  some  strong  evidence. 

"  Q.  Well,  if  that  strong  evidence  of  their  innocence  was  not  intro- 
duced, then  you  would  want  to  convict  them,  of  course? 

"  A.     Certainly." 

Don't  know  whether,  if  the  testimony  was  evenly  balanced,  my  opin- 


(107) 

VOL.  F. 

ion  would  turn  the  scale,  but  I   think  it  would;  I  think   if  the  testimouy 
was  evenly  balanced,  my  present  opinion  would  convict  them. 

64  (Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 

To  Mr.  GRINNELL:  If  I  did  not  believe  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
these  defendants  or  some  of  them  were  guilty,  I  would  be  willing  to 
acquit  them  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court.  I  would  give  the  de- 
fendants the  benefit  of  a  doubt. 

653  If  the  testimony  were  equally  balanced,  I   think  my  present  opinion 

would  convict  the  defendants.     I  said  so,  and  I  still  think  so. 

To  the  Court:  I  understand  that  a  defendant  must  be  proved  guilty 
by  the  evidence  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  or  he  is  entitled  to  be  acquit- 

65  ted.     I   should  give   the  benefit  of  the   doubt  to  the  prisoners,  "  unless 
they  were  proved  to  be  guilty  by  the  evidence." 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled;  exception  by  defendants;  challenged 
peremptorily  by  the  defendants.) 

66-9  N.  C.  Tillinghast,  wholesale  hide  and  leather  dealer;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

70-1  A.  L.  Simons,  wholesale  clothing  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

72-6  J.  H.  Bell,  wholesale  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

77-8  C.  H.  Marshal,  wholesale  dry  goods,  C.  H.  Marshal  &  Co.;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

79,  80  H.  Goodman,  wholesale  clothing  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

81-4  Marshall  M.  Kirkman,  comptroller  for  the  Chicago  and  North-West- 
ern  Railroad  Company. ;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremp- 
torily. 

85-7  W.  L.  Sherwood,  wholesale  woolens,  Sherwood  &  Campbell;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

88-90  Edmund  A.  Cummings,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

91—6  Townsend  Smith,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

97-100  Samuel  H.  Sweet,  wholesale  hats  and  caps;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

101-2  Austyn  Clement,  wholesale  clothing;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

103-7       E.     W.    Prescott,  cashier  and  book-keeper  of   E.   Strahorn   &  Co., 


(ro8) 

VOL.  B*. 

Union  Stock  Yards;  examined  by  defendants;    challenge  for  cause   al- 
lowed. 

108-9  Augustone  Hall,  crockery  and  glassware,  of  the  firm  of  Hall,  Birs- 
back  &  Co.;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

iio-in  John  Barnes,  retail  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

112  Charles  O.  F.  Sedgwick,  not  a    naturalized  citizen;  excused    without 

examination. 

113-116  B.  F.  Reitz,  saddlery  hardware,  but  at  present  retired  from  busi- 
ness; examined  .by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

117,  1 18  T.  P.  Murray,  hardware  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

119  (New  panel  presented;  defendants  challenge  the  array  and  object  to 

the  swearing  of  them,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  drawn  as 
provided  by  law. 

Challenge  to  the  array  overruled,  and  objection  overruled,  and  ex- 
ception.) 

120-1  N.  C.  Nevin,  grocer  at  the  Union  Stock  Yards;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

122-4  E.  A.  Atwater,  hog  buyer  for  Armour  &  Co.;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

125-9  C.  M.  Hutchins,  carpenter  and  joiner;  examined  by  defendants;  ac- 
cepted and  tendered  to  the  state. 

130-1  Mr.  Hutchins  peremptorily  challenged  by  the  state,  to  which  defend- 
ants respectively  except. 

132-41  J.  H.  Brayton,  teacher  in  the  public  schools;  admitted  that  he  had 
formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  based 
upon  what  he  had  read,  and  that  he  was  prejudiced  against  socialists, 
communists  and  anarchists,  but  stated  that  he  believed  he  couM  try  the 
case  upon  the  evidence  alone  without  reference  to  his  opinion;  was  ac- 
cepted and  tendered  by  the  state  to  the  defendants.  And  upon  examina- 
tion by  the  defendants,  further  stated  that  he  believed  he  could  try  de- 
fendants fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  evidence  alone,  without  refer- 
ence to  his  previous  opinion,  and  was  thereupon  accepted  by  the  defend- 
ants. 

Second  panel  of  four  then  sworn  to  try  the  case. 

142—4  James  Johnson,  real  estate  dealer;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 


(  I09) 

VOL.  F. 

145-7,  190  G.  C.  Jackson,  real  estate,  renting  and  collections;  examined  by  the 
state. 

148-51,189  D.  E.  Terriere,  cashier  of  the  Englewood  bank;  examined  by  the 
state. 

152-4,  191   George  N.  Chase,  in  the  livery  business;  examined  by  the  state. 

155-6  H.  O.  Wilson,  in  the  hotel  business  in  Chicago;  examined  by  the  state; 
challenged  peremptorily;  exception  by  each  of  the  defendants  on  the  same 
ground  as  before. 

157-8  William  F.  Curtin,  former  clerk  in  the  water  department  in  the  town  of 
Lake,  Cook  county;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

159-62  John  Scholtz,  merchant  tailor;  examined  by  the  state;  challenged  per- 
emptorily; same  objection  and  exception  on  the  part  of  each  of  the  de- 
fendants as  to  peremptory  challenge. 

163-5  L.  C.  Hogan,  druggist;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

166-8  George  Sherwood,  formerly  locomotive  engineer,  but  at  present  look- 
ing after  his  own  property;  examined  by  the  slate;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

169-70  Edward  P.  Glennin,  formerly  in  the  bottled  beer  business;  excused  by 
consent. 

171-3  E.  D.  White,  in  the  baker  business;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

174-6  Frederick  Malkow,  formerly  saloon-keeper  and  restaurauter;  examined 
by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

177-8  George  Bowhardt,  live  stock  commission;  examined  by  the  state; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

180-2  W.  H.  Mallory,  cattle  buyer  for  Nels.  Morris;  examined  by  the  state; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

183-4  F.  J.  Rappal,  live  stock  commission;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

185-8  Frank  Deforrestk,  live  stock  dealer,  Union  Stock  Yards;  examined  by 
the  state. 

191  State  tendered  to  defendants  Frank  DeForrest,  D.  E.  Terrierre,  D.  C. 

Jackson  and  George  M.  Chase. 

192-201  G.  C.Jackson,  examined  by  defendants  and  excused  for  cause,  being 
over  sixty  years  of  age. 

202-4       D.  E.  Terrierre,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

213-16  George  N.  Chase,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 


(no) 

VOL.  F. 

217-21,  266,  351  Frank  Deforest,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  per- 
emptorily. 

205-12  C.  W.  Partridge,  dry-goods  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

222-6  E.  C.  Wilson,  of  Wilson  Bros.,  wholesale  and  retail  men's  furnishing 
goods;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

227-8  Henry  R.  Symonds,  cashier  First  National  Bank;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

229-33,  268  James  K.  Demming,  insurance  agent;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

234-6  Levi  Doud,  pork  packer,  of  the  firm  of  Doud  &  Co.;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

237-9  H.  N.  Stevens,  assistant  cashier  Commercial  National  Bank;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

240-2  J.  L.  Rowe,  jeweler,  of  Rowe  Brothers;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

243-8,  252  C.  Aldis,  book-keeper,  Seamens  Lungren  Gas  Illuminating  Co.;  ex- 
amined by  defendants. 

249-51  A.  S.  Haskell,  manufacturers'  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

254-5  John  R.  Walsh,  president  Chicago  National  Bank;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

256-7  Gardner  S.  Chapin,  of  the  firm  of  Chapin  &  Gore,  wholesale  whiskies, 
etc.;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

258-68  Charles  M.  Wellington,  general  agent  for  proprietary  medicines;  ex- 
amined by  defendants. 

269-79  Henry  F.  Hersey,  canned  goods  and  foreign  fruit  commission  busi- 
ness; examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

280-81  John  J.  McGrath,  manufacture  and  sale  of  wall  paper;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

282-5  Jonn  A.  King,  wholesale  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

286-7  Robert  Morrisson,  wholesale  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

288-90  J.  T.  Magner,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

291-4  Henry  J.  Christoph,  banker;  examined  by  defendants;  challenged 
peremptorily. 


(Ill) 

VOL.  F. 

295-7  F.  A.  Winslow,  wholesale  leather  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

298-307  W.  J.  Johnson,  wholesale  bagging;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

308-9  Charles  H.  Patton,  member  of  the  firm  of  S.  I.  Pope  &  Co.,  steam 
heating;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

310-14  Erskine  M.  Phelps,  wholesale  boots  and  shoes;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

315-17  E.  L.  Canfield,  real  estate  brokerage;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

328-19  E.  B.  Clark,  molding  and  picture  frame  business;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

320-22  Byron  A.  Baldwin,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

323—5  A.  S.  Gage,  wholesale  and  retail  merchandise;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

327  J.  C.  Neely,  cashier  Merchants'  National  Bank;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

328  E.  D.  Kinney,  fire  insurance  business;  examined  by  defendants;   chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

329-32  T.  B.  Elliott,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

333-5  P.  A.  Barnes,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

336-40  G.  S.  Wheeler,  real  estate  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

341-3  W.  B.  VVetherwax,  real  estate  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

344-5  Charles  B.  Ross,  furniture  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

346-7  W.  E.  Frost,  manufacturer  of  sash,  doors  and  blinds;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

348-50,  369-70  Arthur  Lederer,  manager  of  banking  house  of  C.  B.  Richard- 
son &  Co.;  examined  by  defendants. 

352-3  C.  H.  Leach,  real  estate  owner  and  dealer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

354-6  Matthew  J.  Hackett,  clerk  in  the  loan  department  of  the  North- 
Western  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co.;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 


(112) 
VOL.  F. 

357-8  J.  W.  O'Dell,  grain  elevator  proprietor;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

359-60  Amos  Pettibone,  retail  and  jobbing  stationery  and  blank  books;  exam- 
ined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

361  J.  A.  Bartlet,  real  estate  and  loan;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

362  L.  Hasbrouck,  fire  insurance  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

363-4  H.  J.  Ullman,  fire  insurance  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

365  C.  M.  Rogers,  fire  insurance  business;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

366-7  W.  W.  Baird,  real  estate  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

371-2  N.  A.  Mayer,  banker,  of  Leopold  Mayer;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

373-4  Frank  M.  Elliott,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

375-6  Albert  Durham,  financial  broker;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

377-80  Charles  Hepper,  retail  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

381-2  W.  E.  Paulsen,  insurance  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

383-5  Charles  C.  Phillips,  insurance  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

386-90  Otto  Wasmansdorf,  banker,  of  the  firm  of  Wasmansdorf  &  Heineman; 
examined  by  defendants. 

(Defendants  accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state  Otto  Wasmansdorf, 
Arthur  Lederer,  C.  M.  Wellington  and  H.  C.  Aldis.) 

395,428-9  H.  C.  Aldis,  examined   by  the  state   and  challenged   peremptorily. 
(Same  objection  and  exception  on  behalf  of  each  defendant  as  before.) 

396-402,407-8  Arthur  Lederer,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

403-6  Charles  M.  Wellington,  examined  by  the  state;  challenged  peremp- 
torily. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  on  behalf  of  each  defendant  as  before.) 

409-11  Otto  Wasmansdorf,  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 


("3) 

VOL.  F. 

412—13     J.  B.  Stevens,  in  the  butcher  business;  examined   by  state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

413-17     C.  B.  Meserve,  livery  stable  proprietor;  examined  by  state. 
418-20     F.  B.  Krugg,  hardware   merchant;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

421-3       Joseph  H.  Shields,  coal  and  wood  business;  examined  by  state;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 
424-7       Phillip  Brask,  grocer;    examined  by  state;    challenged  peremptorily. 

Same  objection  and  exception  by  each  defendant  as  before. 
430-2       Edward  Schumacher,  book-keeper  for  Cabin   &  Eckman,  plumbers; 

examined  by  state. 
433-7       J.  C.  Magill,  real  estate  and  loans,  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 
438-40     H.  A.   Fierson,  banker  and  broker;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

441-4,  449  James  Foster,  painter  in  business  for  himself;  examined  by  state. 
445-8       G.  H.  Bauer,  hardware  merchant;  examined  by  state. 
449  The  state  accepted  and  tendered  Edward  Schumacher,  James  Foster, 

G.  H.  Bauer  and  C.  B.  Meserve. 
450-5       Edward   Schumacher,  examined  by  defendants;    challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

456-61,  479  C.  B.  Meserve,  examined  by  defendants,  and  challenged  peremp- 
torily. 

464— 7n    James  Foster,  examined  by  defendants,  and  challenged  peremptorily. 
468-73     G.  H.  Bauer,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
474-8       G.  B.  Milne,  grocer;    examined   by   defendants;    challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 
480-1       E.  D.  Petrie,  book-keeper  for  Etna  Insurance  Company;  examined  by 

defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
482-4       W.  R.  Scott,  grocer;    examined  by  defendants;   challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 
485-6       George  W.  Scott,  attorney  in  fact  for  non-residents,  collecting  agent, 

etc.;  examined  by  defendants. 

488-92,  520  John  W.  Becker,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants. 
493-5       W.  H.  Richards,  livery  and  boarding  stable;  examined  by  defendants; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

496-502  C.  T.  Paine,  retail  furniture  dealer ;  examined  by  defendants. 
503-4       B.  J.  Ridgeway,  coal  dealer;    examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 


("4) 

VOL.  F. 

505  Charles  Anderes,  fire  insurance  agent,  etc.;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

506  (New  panel  of  talesmen  presented;  same  challenge    to    the  array; 

overruled,  and  exception.) 

507-9       George  B.  Coombs,  real  estate;    examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

510-11     August    Hussy,  cashier  and  book-keeper  for  Sutter  Bros. ;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

512-13  John  H.  Brown,  wholesale  and  retail  rubber  goods  business;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

514-15  D.  C.  Peck,  salesman  for  Electrical  Supply  Company ;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

516-17  E.  E.  Ellsworth,  wholesale  and  retail  barbed  wire  manufacturer;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

518-19     P.  P.  Gibbs,  examined  by  defendants. 

521  (Defendants  accepted  and  tendered  to  the  state   George  W.  Scott, 

John  W.  Becker,  C.  T.  Paine  and  P.  P.  Gibbs.) 

521-4,  556  John  W.  Becker,  examined  by  state  and  challenged  peremptorily. 

(Same   objection,  and  exception  on  behalf  of  each  of  the  defend- 
ants.) 

525  George  W.  Scott,  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

526-9  C.  T.  Paine,  examined  by  the  state.  (This  juror  was  subsequently 
challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state,  and  the  same  objection  and  ex- 
ception in  behalf  of  each  defendant  as  in  the  other  cases.  See  Vol.  G, 
page  17.) 

530-2,  565-9  P.  P.  Gibbs,  examined  by  the  state  and  excused  for  cause. 

533-5  D.  H.  Patterson,  metal  manufacturer  and  agent  of  the  Scoville 
Manufacturing  Company;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

536-7  David  Walters,  dry-goods  salesman;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

533-40  John  Reynolds,  merchant  tailor's  salesman;  examined  by  state;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

541-3  J.  P.  Deidel,  dry-goods  and  notion  merchant;  examined  by  state; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

544-5  Fred  Cook,  salesman  with  James  Wilde,  Jr.,  &  Co.,  clothier;  exam- 
ined by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

546-7  David  Vanderwolff,  baker  and  confectioner;  examined  by  state;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 


("5) 

VOL.  P. 

548-50  James  Armstrong,  dry-goods  merchant;  examined  by  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

551-5       Charles  J.  True,  examined  by  state. 

557-8       Seifert  Bus,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

559-61  A.  Witt,  hardware  merchant;  examined  by  state;  challenged  per- 
emptorily. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  in  behalf  of  each  defendant  as  before.) 

562-4  John  M.  Dickinson,  hardware  salesman;  examined  by  state;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  by  each  of  the  defendants.) 

570-3       H.  C.  Storey,  furniture  and  household  goods;  examined  by  the  state. 

574,  578-9  Charles  J.  True,  examined  by  defendants. 

575-7  W.  P.  Johnson,  grocer;  examined  by  the  state;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

586-4        H.  C.  Storey,  examined  by  defendants. 

584  Mr.  Storey  challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state. 

(Same    objection  and  exception  on  behalf  of    each  of  the  defend- 
ants.) 

VOL.  G. 

1—5,  3-6  Otto  G.  Hettinger,  druggist;  examined  by  state. 

6-9  Christian  B.  Strange,  clerk  in  First  National  Bank;  examined  by  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

10-14  F.  M.  Williams,  druggist;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

15,  16  and  35   Hamilton  B.  Bogue,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  state. 

18-21  Stephen  A.  Farrar,  mechanical  engineer,  Lincoln  Park;  examined  by 
state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

22-40  W.  W.  Sherman,  division  superintendent  Union  Stock  Yard  Com- 
pany; examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

25-27  J.  P.  Kennedy,  retail  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

28,  29       William  Zeitz,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

30,31  A.  L.  Russell,  druggist;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

32-4         H.  R.  Lee,  wholesale  pictures   and  fmoldings;  examined  by  state. 

37  The  state  accepted  and  tendered  to  defendants  Charles  F.  True,  Otto 

G.  Hottinger,  Hamilton  B.  Bogne  and  H.  R.  Lee. 

37-49,  176-7  Mr.  Hottinger,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 


(1,6) 

VOL.  G. 

50-3  •        Mr.  Bogue,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

54-60,80-1   Mr.  Lee,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

6r  Mr.  True,  examined  by  defendants:  My  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or 

innocence  of  the  defendants  is  quite  firm;  it  is  just  as  strong  now  as  it 
was  before;  as  far  as  I  know,  I  have  a  prettv  decided  prejudice  against 
socialists,  anarchists  and  communists.  I  don't  know  how  it  would  be 
about  my  being  influenced  by  the  prejudice  or  bias  that  I  have  by 
reason  of  my  opinion;  the  best  that  I  could  do  would  be  to  try  to  over- 
come it;  I  could  only  guess  at  it.  I  cannot  say  absolutely  that  I  can  act 
upon  the  proofs  alone,  and  not  be  influenced  by  my  prejudice  and  opin- 

62  ion;  cannot  say  whether  I  would  be  influenced  or  would  not  be  influ- 
enced; I  would  try  not  to  be,  but  cannot  say;  I  cannot  say  I  would  not  be. 
(Challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled,  and  exception.  Chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

63-4  L.  D.  Kent,  buyer  at  the  stock  yards  for  C.  H.  North  &  Co.,  of  Bos- 
ton; examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

65  William  F.  Bodley,  commission  merchant,  stock  yards;  examined  by 

defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

74-9  T.  M.  Hobbs,  clerk  for  Armour  &  Co.;  examined  by  defendants;  ex- 
cused on  account  of  physical  debility. 

82—4  C.  N.  Perry,  buyer  for  packing-house  of  Geo.  D.  Baldwin  &  Co.;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

85-93  F.  H.  Horine,  live  stock  commission  business;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenged  peremptorily. 

94-6  Arthur  K.  Brown,  retail  boot  and  shoe  dealer;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

97-8  Thompson  Tipton,  live  stock  commission  business;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

99-102  J.  W.  Perry,  assistant  salesman  for  Rosenbaum  Brothers,  stock  yards; 
examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

103-8  W.  J.  Quinn,  employed  by  Armour  &  Co.,  town  of  Lake;  examined 
by  defendants. 

109-112  B.  Conlick,  live  stock  commission  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

113-15  A.  D.  Osborne,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

116-19  T.  B.  Seavey,  retail  hardware;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 


("7) 

VOL.  G. 

120-2  H.  Webster,  mechanical  engineer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

123,  124  W.  T.  O'Herne,  hardware  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

125-6  D.  E.  Hennessey,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

117  Arthur  Hugunin,  clerk  in  the  railroad  business;  am  not  actively  with 

any  company  at  present;  last  with  the  North- Western  railroad.  Have 
heard  and  read  about  the  Hay  market  meeting;  I  formed  a  pretty  strong 
opinion  about  the  matter  at  the  time;  I  have  a  rather  decided  opinion  as 
to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants;  it  would  not  influence  my 
verdict;  I  would  give  them  as  fair  a  trial  as  I  know  how — I  know  I 

129  could  do  that.     I   am  not   particularly  in   love  with  anarchism.     Would 
try  to  give  the  defendants  as  fair  a  trial  as  I  know  how.     If  I  have  any 

130  prejudice  "  there  might  be  evidence  enough  to  overthrow  my  prejudice." 
If  the  evidence  was  evenly  balanced,  my  prejudice  might  determine  the 
case;  I  suppose  I  would  accept  more  kindly  the  testimony  in  favor  of  my 
present  opinion  than  what  was  opposed  to  it;  the  evidence  being  evenly 
balanced,  I  would  decide  in  accordance  with  my  present  views. 

(Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 

To  Mr.  Grinnell:  I  know  the  defendants  are  entitled  to  a  fair  trial,  and 
if,  after  hearing  the  proof,  I  could  not  tell  where  the  weight  of  evidence 

131  was,  that  would  raise  a  reasonable  doubt  and  I  would  give  the  defendants 
the  benefit.     Think  I  could  try  the  case  and  render  a  verdict  on  the  evi- 
dence, without  reference  to  my  present  opinion. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants.) 
To  the  Court:  I  recognize  the  rule  that  no   man    should   be  convicted 
unless  the  evidence  proves  his  guilt,  and  I  believe  I  can  fairly  and  impar- 
tially determine  whether  or  not  the  evidence  to  be  presented  in  this  case 
does  or  does  not   prove   these   defendants    guilty  of  the  crime  charged, 
and  unless  the  evidence  establishes  their  guilt,  I  would  acquit. 
133-5        Further  examined  by  defendants: 

136  Am  acquainted  with  members  of  the  Chicago  police  force  who  were 
at  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  have  talked  with  them  about  the  affair. 

137  I  refer  to  Officer  Haas — detective  Louis  Haas.    I  have  known  him  prob- 
ably three  or  four  years.     He  did  not  mention  the  names  of  any  of  the 
defendants. 

(Peremptorily  challenged  by  defendants.) 


VOL.  G. 

140-4  Joseph  O'Brien,  grocery  and  market  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

145-6  J.  G.  Cook,  grocery  and  meat-market;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

147-50  H.  W.  Durant,  grocery  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

151-2  John  T.  Martin,  live  stock  business  at  stock  yards;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed: 

x53-7  M.  J.  Berry,  deliverer  for  the  Union  Stock  Yards  Transit  Company; 
examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

153-62  F.  D.  Buckley,  wall  paper,  paint  and  oil  business;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

163-4  J-  McGillicuddy,  clerk  for  Armour  &  Co.  at  stockyards;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

165  Leroy  Hannah,  live  stock  commission  merchant;  examined  by  defend- 
ants:    Have  been  in   business  for  myself  eight  years,  most  of  the  time 

166  live  stock.     Have  heard  and  read  of  the  Haymarket  meeting,  but  have 
formed  no  opinion  touching  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the   defendants,  or 

167  any  of  them.     I  have  a  prejudice  against  socialists,  communists  and  an- 
archists.    I  think  were  I  a  juror  in  this  case,  my  verdict  might  be  prej- 
udiced by  my  present  bias  and   opinion,  and   I   believe  that  I  cannot  act 
upon  the  proof  presented  here  in  court,  alone,  uninfluenced  thereby. 

(Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 

To  the  State:  I  have  formed  an  opinion  that  a  crime  was  perpetrated, 
but  not  as  to  the  parties  responsible.  If  taken  as  a  juror,  I  should  try,  at 

168  least,  to  determine  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  these  defend- 
ants, without  reference  to  what  I  have  heard  or  read,  or  my  own  opinion, 
and  I  believe  I  could  do  so,  probably. 

To  the  Court:  Have  never  seen  any  of  the  defendants;  have  no  per- 
sonal acquaintance  with  them,  and  the  only  opinion  that  I  have  about  this 
cause  is  f  rom  what  I  have  read  and  heard.  I  talked  with  a  policeman, 
who  was  present  at  the  Haymarket,  but  the  names  of  the  defendants 

169  were  not  mentioned,  and  my  conversation  had  no  influence  on  my  opinion 
as  to  any  of  these  defendants;  think  I  could  listen  to  the  evidence  in  this 
case,  and  decide  upon  that   alone;  think  I    could    fairly  and    impartially 
render  a  verdict  upon  the  evidence  and  in  accordance  with  the  law,  if  I 
should  be  selected  as  a  juror. 

(Challenge  overruled.) 
To  Defendants'  Counsel:  I  talked  with   a   policeman  who  was  present 


("9) 

VOL.   G. 

at  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and,  in  a  general  way,  he  told  me  about  what 
happened  there,  the  marching  up  of  the  police,  and  the  throwing  of  the 
bomb  through  the  crowd;  did  not  mention  any  of  the  defendants,  or 
what  particular  persons  made  speeches;  but  I  have  heard  the  names  of 
Spies,  Parsons  and  Fielden,  and  whatever  opinion  I  have  upon  the  matter 
has  reference  to  the  parties  who  bear  those  names;  and  the  prejudice 
which  I  have  is  against  these  parties  bearing  those  names  and  the  princi- 
ples they  advocate;  it  applies  to  Mr.  Spies,  Mr.  Parsons  and  Mr.  Fielden. 

171  It  is  so  strong  that  it  would  probably  influence  me  in  considering  the 
testimony.  I  am  prejudiced  against  the  principles  that  they  advocate 
and  against  them.  The  way  I  feel  is,  that  my  prejudice  might  influence 
my  verdict;  don't  know  that  it  would.  "I  don't  know  but  we  deceive 
ourselves  sometimes,  when  we  say  we  can  do  so  and  so."  My  prejudice 
might  bias  my  verdict. 

I72~5  (Challenge  for  cause  renewed;  argument  upon  said  challenge; 

challenge  overruled;  exception  by  defendants,  and  said  Hannah 

193  challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

178-9  F.  H.  Hebard,  expressman,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

180-1  L.  G.  Lambert,  buyer  for  Edson  Keith  &  Co.;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

182-3  Henry  McKenzie,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

184-5  Andrew  Murray,  live-stock  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

186-92  Henry  Nehring,  clerk  for  Edson  Keith  &  Co.;  examined  by  defend- 
ants. 

194-6  T.  E.  Paxton,  book-keeper  in  wholesale  shoe  house;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

197-201  B.  T.  Green,  clerk  in  furniture  store;  examined  by  defendants. 

202  (Defendants  accepted  and  tendered  to  the   state  Henry  Nehring,  B. 

T.  Green,  W.  J.  Quinn  and  T.  M.  Hobbs.) 

203  W.  J.  Quinn,  challenged  for  cause  by  the  state;  challenge  allowed. 
204-212  B.  T.  Green,  examined  by  state;  challenged  peremptorily. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  in  behalf  of  each  defendant.) 
213  Henry  Nehring,  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

214-18  T.  M.  Hobbs,  examined  by  state  and  excused  upon  his  statement  that 
he  did  not  believe  that  he  was  physically  able  to  sit. 


VOL.  Q. 

219-21     C.  F.   Rice,   dealer  in  picture  frames,  etc.;  examined  by  state;  chal- 
lenge tor  cause  allowed. 
223-5       Charles  Higgins,  book  publisher;  examined   by   state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. , 
226-7       George  Louderback,  employed  by  H.  Blackall,  tea  and  coffee  dealer; 

examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
228-30     H.  Stilson,  furniture   dealer;  examined   by  state;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 
231-2        M.  M.  Grable,  salesman  for  Davis,  Morse  &  Co.;  examined  by  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
233-4       Henry  J.  Kirk,  salesman  for  Edson  Keith  &  Co.;  examined  by  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
235—6       J.  M.  Dimery,  gas-fixtures  salesman   for  Wilmarth  &  Co.;  examined 

by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
237-8       H.  C.  Colby,  furniture  dealer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 
239-42     J.  D.  Burris,  live  stock  commission;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

243-6       Patrick  A.  Valentine,  with   Armour  &  Co.,  as  confidential  clerk;  ex- 
amined by  state. 

'247—50     A.  E.  Schraudenbach,  general  merchandise;  examined  by  state;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 
251-2       F.   T.  Bishop,  clerk   with  Montgomery  Ward  &  Co.;  examined  by 

state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
253-66,311   Alanson    H.  Reed,   piano   manufacturer  and  dealer;  examined  by 

state. 
267-9       W-  G.  Woodruff,  shipping  clerk  for   Healey  &  Millet,  stained  glass 

manufacturers;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
270-2       W.  A.  Campbell,  wall  paper  business;  examined  by  state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 
273-4       Joseph   Spiegel,  furniture  manufacturer  and  dealer;  examined  by  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
275-8       Benjamin  Coffman,  live  stock  business  at  stock  yards;  examined  by 

state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
279-82     F.  A.  Upham,  salesman,  in  furnishing  goods   business;  examined  by 

state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
283-8       John  Gauler,  butcher,  not  in  business  at  present;  examined  by  state; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
289-91     D.  W.  Burchard,  wholesale  dealer  in  novelties;  examined  by  state. 


(121) 

VOL.    G, 

292-4  George  W.  Singles,  salesman  for  Edson  Keith  &  Co.;  examined  by 
state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

295-6  Albert  A.  Reiley,  mantels  and  grates;  examined  by  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

297~8  J.  B.  Steager,  dealer  in  pianos;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

299  George  W.  Hill,  hardware  merchant;  examined  by  state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

300-3  J.  E.  Lewis,  sewing  machine  supplies;  examined  by  state;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

304-5  Lewis  Peterson,  grocery  clerk;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

306-8       William  Hayden,  furniture  dealer;  examined  by  state. 

312  State  accepted  and  tendered  Patrick  A.  Valentine,  Alanson  H.  Reed, 

D.  W.  Burehard  and  William  Hayden. 

312-18  Patrick  A.  Valentyne,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

318  (Motion  by  defendants  renewed,  that  state  be  required  to  fill  the 

panel  of  four  men;  overruled,  and  exception.) 

319-21  William  Hayden,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

329-35     D.  W.  Burehard,  examined  by  defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

322-3  C.  W.  Dingman,  clerk  with  Armour  &  Co.;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

324-8,  342  John  Fitzgerald,  clerk  for  Armour  &  Co.;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenged  peremptorily. 

336-7  W.  Bradley,  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

338-41  James  C.  Connor,  contractor  and  builder;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

343-7  C.  R.  Kelley,  book-keeper  with  Armour  &  Co.;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

348-50     S.  D.  Lamphier,  grocer;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

351—4       Charles  F.  Hellmuth,  florist;  examined  by  defendants. 

355  J-   B.  Greiner,  examined   by  defendants:     Employe    in    the    general 

freight  office  of  the  Chicago  and  North-Weslern  Railway  Company,  in 
charge  of  the  pool  maps;  examined  by  defendants.  Have  heard  and 
read  of  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  have  formed  an  opinion  based  upon 


(122) 
VOL.  G. 

356  these  reports  as  to  the  crime  committed  at  the  Haymarket.     "It  is  evi- 
dent that  the   defendants  are  connected  with  it,  from  their  being  here." 
At  least,  I  would   expect  that  it  connected   them,  or  they  would  not  be 
here;  so  that  the  opinion  which  I  now  have  is  an  opinion  touching  the 
guilt  or  innocence   of    the   defendants.     I  certainly  think  that   opinion 
would  affect  my  verdict  to  some  extent;  "  I  do  not  see  how  it  could  be 

357  otherwise."     I  suppose    if  I  were  on   the  jury,  it  would  be  my  duty  to 
disregard  everything  except   the  evidence,  and  I  think  I  could  act  upon 

359       the  testimony  alone,  and  render  an  impartial  verdict. 

359-62     Mr.  Greiner  examined  by  the  state  by  consent. 

363-4  Andrew  Simpson,  keeper  of  a  meat  market;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

365-8  J.  R.  Snyder,  jeweler;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

369-70  N.  P.  Williams,  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

371-3  Lou  Lenhardt,  coal,  wood,  flour,  feed,  lime  and  cement  merchant;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

374-9  E.  H.  McGuire,  clerk,  Union  National  Bank;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

380-1  M.  H.  Walker,  caterer  and  restaurant  keeper;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

382-93  Alexander  Drummond,  retail  hardware  dealer;  examined;  challenge 
for  cause  by  defendants  allowed. 

394-5  Moses  D.  Witkowsky.  bank  clerk,  Union  National  Bank:  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

386-401  W.  C.  Gar  wood,  druggist;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

402-3  W.  G.  Hedden,  grocer's  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

404-10    John  H.  Purdy,  map  canvasser;  examined  by  defendants. 

410  (Defendants  accepted  Alanson  H.  Reed,  and  tendered  with  him  to 

the   state    Charles   F.  Hellmuth,  John   B.   Greiner  and  John  H. 
Purdy.) 

411  Charles    F.    Hellmuth,    challenged    for    cause    by    state;    challenge 
allowed. 

413-16  C.  J.  Gilbert,  real  estate  dealer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 


(I23) 

VOL.  G. 

417-21     Robert  J.  Hobbs,  painter;  examined  by  state. 

(Said  Hobbs  was  challenged  peremptorily  by  the  state,  to  which 
defendants  excepted  upon  the  same  ground  as  in  other  cases. 
See  Vol.  H,  page  i.) 

422-6       John    H.    Purdy,    examined   by    the  state;  challenged    peremptorily. 
(Same  objection  and  exception  on  behalf  of  each  of  the  defendants 

as  before.) 

427-30       D.  J.  Moss,  grocer;  examined  by  state  and  challenged  upon  his  an- 
swers for  cause  by  defendants;     challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
431-2       George    Taylor,    grocer;    examined    by  sfate;    challenge    for    cause 

allowed. 

433-6       Nicola   P.  Mersch,  grocer;  examined   by  state;  challenged    peremp- 
torily. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  on  behalf  of  each  of  the  defend- 
ants as  before.) 

437  George  H.  Quinlan,  hotel  clerk;  examined  by  the  state.  Was  formerly 
a  bank  clerk  in   First  National  Bank;  have  read  about  the  Haymarket 

438  affair  and  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  de- 
fendants, which  I  still  entertain;  think  I   could  determine  the  question  of 
their  guilt  or  innocence  regardless  of  my  opinion   and  of  what  I  have 

439  read.     Don't  know   any  of  the  defendants  nor  their  counsel.     Have  no 
sympathy  with  any  individual  or  class  of  individuals  who  have  for  their 
purpose  the  overthrow  of  law  by  force.     I  am   a  little  afraid  as  to  my 
ability  to  fairly  and  impartially  determine  from  the  proof  alone  whether 
the  defendants  are  or  are  not  guilty,  for  "  I  have  a  pretty  strong  opinion 
about  the  thing."     Honestly,  I  do  not  believe  T  could  do  it;  I  am  afraid 

440  I  should   be  biased   from  the   opinion  which  I  have  already  formed.     I 
know  they  are  entitled  to  a  fair  trial,  but  I  do  not  believe  I  could  be  en- 
tirely impartial.     I.  know  they  are  entitled  to  have  the  question  of  their 
guilt  or  innocence  determined  upon  the  proofs,  and  I  know  nothing  as  to 
the  facts  myself;  I  have  an  opinion  based  on  what  I  have  read;  have  not 
talked  with  anybody  who  professed  to  know  about  the  matter  or  who  saw 

441  the  transaction.     I  do  not  see  why  I  should  not  determine,  if  chosen  as  a 
juror,  whether  the  defendants  are  guilty  from  the  proof  introduced  and 
that  alone,  though,  of  course,  I  have  talked  about  this  thing  and  have  a 
very  strong  opinion. 

To  Defendants'  Counsel:  Do   not  believe  1  could   return  a  verdict  in 
this  case  on  the  evidence  uninfluenced  by  my  present  opinion. 
(Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 


(I24) 
VOL.  G. 

To  the  State:  I  have  stated  that  I  believed  I  could  determine  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  here  in 
court,  and  I  still  believe  so,  but  my  opinion  would  be  biased.  "  I  am 

442  positive  that  that  opinion  which  I  have  formed  would  override  my  judg- 
ment." 

VOL.  H. 

2,3  Eugene  McKay,  retail  shoe  dealer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

4,5  W.  T.  Lord,  dry  goods   merchant;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 

6-8  W.  G.  Hoag,  insurance   and   banking;  examined  by  state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

9, 10  Daniel  S.  Smith,  painter;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  al- 
lowed. 

ii  Samuel  Kaufman,  dry-goods  merchant;  examined  by  state;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 

12-16       A.  Montgomery,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenged  peremptorily. 
(Same  objection  and  exception  by  each  defendant  as  before.) 

17-20  John  Culver,  real  estate  and  insurance;  examined  by  state;  challenged 
peremptorily. 

(Same    objection   and   exception    on    behalf  of   each  defendant    as 
before.) 

21-3  John  Anderson,  furniture  dealer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

24-5  Robert  Finley,  grocer;  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

26-9  L.  Turner,  livery-stable  keeper,  examined  by  state;  challenged  per- 
emptorily. 

(Same  objection  and  exception  by  each  defendant  as  before.) 

30  George  W.  Adams,  examined  by  state;  am  a   painter  by  trade,  but 

31  am  at  present  salesman  for  George  W.  Pitkin,  wholesale   mixed  paints; 

32  do  not  belong  to  any  labor  organization  and  never  did;  am  unmarried; 
saw    in    the    papers    the    account    of   the    Haymarket    occurrence    and 
heard    of   it    as   well.     Formed    an    opinion    as  to    the    commission  of 
a    crime,    but    not    as   to    the    guilt  of  the    defendants,  and  I   have  no 
opinion  upon  that  point.     Believe  I  could  determine  their  guilt  or  inno- 

34  cence  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court,  regardless  of  anything  else. 
Know  of  no  reason  why  I  cannot  fairly  and  impartially  try  this  case 


VOL.  H. 

35  upon   the   proofs   presented   in  court  and  determine  the  question  of  the 

defendants'  guilt  upon  that  alone. 

(The  state  thereupon  accepted  and  tendered  to  the  defense,  with 
Mr.  Reed,  John  B.  Greiner,  George  W.  Adams  and  George  H. 
Quinlan.) 

36  George  H.  Quinlan,  examined  by  defendants:     Do   not  believe  that  I 
could  try  this  case  and  render  a  verdict  upon   the  proofs   presented  in 
court  alone;  my  opinions  and  prejudices  are  so  strong  that  I  do  not  think 
I  could  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  if  selected  as  a  juror. 

(Challenge  for  cause  allowed.) 

37  Charles  G.  Klein,  flour,  feed  and  groceries;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

38  George    H.    Adams,   examined    by  defendants:      Am    twenty-seven 
years  of  age:  my  territory  as  traveling  salesman  for  Pitkin  was  in  Mich- 
igan.    Read  of  the  Haymarket  occurrence  both  in  the   Chicago   papers 
and  in  the  Michigan   papers,  and,  after  my  return,  about  the  middle  of 
May,  frequently  conversed  with  my  friends  as  to  what  was   supposed  to 
have  occurred  there.     I  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  offense  there  com- 
mitted, and  I  thought  some  of  these  defendants  were  interested  in  it,  and 
still  think  so;  nothing  has  occurred  to  change  that  opinion.     I  remember 
the  names  of  some  of  the  parties   now  on  trial  being   mentioned   in  re- 

40  ports  read  by  me,  and  that  caused  me  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt 
or  innocence   of  some   of  the    defendants;  do  not  think  that  opinion  is 
strong.     Have  carried  on  the  business  as  a   painter  for  myself,  employ- 

41  ing   others.     This  was   when  I   was  in  Kansas  City;  have   no  feeling 

42  against  the  organization  of  working  people,  and  have  no  prejudice,  so 

43  far  as  I  know,  against  socialists,  communists   or  anarchists.     Notwith- 
standing the  opinion   which  I  now  have  touching  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
some  of  the  defendants,  my  mind  is  in  such   a   condition    that   I  can   try 
this  case  upon   the  testimony  only  which   may  be  introduced  in   court, 
and  I  suppose  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  jury  to  decide  and  return  a  verdict 

44  formed  entirely  upon  legal  evidence  in  court.     Never  sat  on   a  criminal 
jury  before.     I  understand  also  that  a  conviction   must  be  based   solely 
upon  the  evidence,  without  reference  to  outside  report,  and  that  in    order 
to  justify  a  conviction,  the  guilt  of  the  defendant  must  be  established  be- 

45  yond  all  reasonable  doubt.     1  believe  1  can   render  a  verdict  in  this  case 

46  unbiased  by  any  opinion  I  now  have.     My  father  is   a  contractor  and  I 
have  worked  at  times  for  him. 


(126) 
VOL.  H. 

47,48  R.  W.  Hamill,  grain  commission  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
Have  heard  and  read  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  and  its  results,  and 
have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  or 
some  of  them,  but  not  very  decided,  nor  such  as  to  prevent  my  render- 
ing an  impartial  verdict,  I  think. 

49  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

50  A.  W.  Dunlap,  employed  in  the   general  freight  house  of   the  North- 
Western  railroad;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

51—2  Brainard  Parker,  livery  and  real  estate  business;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

53  James  M.  Stimpson,  cashier  Dalziel  National   Printing   Company;  ex- 

amined by  defendants:  Have  formed  an  opinion  from  what  I  have 
heard  and  read  of  the  Haymarket  affair  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants  of  the  murder  of  Degan  or  some  of  them;  it  is  a  decided 
opinion,  which  I  still  entertain,  and  have  expressed  to  others. 

(Challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled  and  exception.     Chal- 
lenged peremptorily.) 

54-5  Frank  Cassidy,  traveling  auditor  for  the  Northwest  Traffic  Associa- 
tion; examined  by  defendants. 

(Adams   accepted   by   defendants   and  with  Cassidy,  Greiner  and 
Reed  tendered  to  the  state.) 

56  Cassidy  examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

57-8  R.  F.  Harriett,  traveling  agent  for  the  Lackawanna  Fast  Freight  Line; 
examined  by  state;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

59-62  B.  H.  Patterson,  examined  by  state  and  tendered  to  defendants,  with 
Adams,  Greiner  and  Reed. 

63  (Excused  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

64-5  J.  G.  Thorn,  west  bound  agent  for  the  Lackawanna  line;  examined 
by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

66-7  Oscar  Dunklee,  livery  stable  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

68  A.  R.  Porter,  dry  goods   merchant;  examined  by  defendants:    Have 

read  and  heard  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  and  of  the  killing  of  Mr. 
Degan,  and  have  formed  an  opinion  upon  the  matter,  which  I  still  enter- 
tain and  have  expressed  to  others.  It  is  an  opinion  touching  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  the  defendants. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 
Examined  by  state.     The  opinion  is  based  on  what   I   have   read  and 


(I27) 
VOL.  H. 

49         heard.     It    is    an    opinion   as  to  the  crime  committed  and  not  as  to  the 
guilt  of  defendants. 

(Challenge  for   cause  overruled,  and   exception.     Challenged   per- 
emptorily by  defendants.) 

70-1         John  D.  Zoller,  painter,  examined  by  defendants;   challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

72-3         William  Moore,  salesman  with  Edson  Keith  &  Co;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

74-5         Alexander  Stevens,  carpenter;    examined    by  defendants;    challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

76-7         W.  L.  Robbinson,  coal  dealer;    examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

78-9         Wirt  J.Allen,  agent    for    the    Nickel  Plate   Fast  Freight   Line;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

80— i          F.  W.  Irwin,   railroad   business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

82-3         Frank  Ray,  clerk    First   National  Bank;   examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

84  James  A.  Rowe,  in  the  employ  of  the  Union  National  Bank;  exam- 
ined by  defendants:     Have  heard  of    the   Haymarket   meeting  and  the 
killing  of  Mr.  Began.     I  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  defendants  of  that  offense,  based  on  what  I  have  read  in  the 
papers,  which    opinion   I   have   expressed  to  others    and   which   I  still 
entertain. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

85  Examined  by  State:     I  can't  say  that  I  have  an  opinion  that  any  one 
of  these  eight  men  was   guilty  of  the  offense,  not  knowing  of  my  own 
knowledge. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by.  defendants.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 
86-7         J.   R.   McAdam,   residing  in   Hyde   Park;  examined;  challenged  by 

defendants  for  cause;  challenge  allowed. 

88n  Daniel  F.  Wynn,  clerk;  examined    by  defendants;    challenged  per- 

emptorily. 

89  F.  L.  Billion,  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

90  Charles  Roberts,   grocer;    examined    by    defendants:      Have   heard 
and  read  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  and  have  formed   an  opinion   as  to 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of  the  killing    of    Mr.  Began, 
which  opinion  I  still  entertain  and  have  communicated  to  others. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 


(I28) 

VOL.  H. 

Examined  by  State:  The  opinion  is  based  generally  upon  news- 
paper reports  read  by  me,  but  also  upon  conversations  at  different  times, 
but  with  no  one  who  was  present  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  that  1  know 
91  of,  I  have  decidedly  an  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  these  defendants 
or  any  of  them  were  guilty  or  not  of  that  crime.  I  think  I  could  fairly 
and  impartially  try  this  case  and  render  a  verdict  upon  the  evidence. 
Have  told  others  that  I  believed  what  I  read  in  the  paper.  Have  com- 
municated my  opinion  to  different  parties  at  different  times. 

"  Q.  The  question  is  not  whether  you  ever  told  anybody  your  opin- 
ion, but  whether  you  have  told  anybody  that  you  believed  the  facts 
which  you  read  in  the  newspapers  to  be  true — that  is,  after  you  read  the 
newspaper  and  then  said  to  some  one  man,  '  I  believe  that  statement  to 
be  true?'  A.  I  think  I  have  made  that  statement." 

"  The  COURT:  There  is  a  distinction  between  expressing  an  opinion 
about  the  fact  of  a  crime  having  been  committed  or  about  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  any  of  the  defendants,  and  expressing  an  opinion  as  to 
whether  the  story  as  told  in  the  paper  was  rightly  told  by  the  paper. 
Now,  have  you  ever  expressed  any  opinion  about  the  newspaper, 
whether  the  newspaper  had  a  right  version  of  the  story  or  not?  A.  I 
read  the  report  in  the  different  newspapers." 

"  Q.  Have  you  ever  said  anything  about  whether  the  version  in  the 
newspaper,  or  any  of  them,  was  a  correct  version  of  the  transaction  or 
not?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have." 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

94-5         George  Key,  engaged  in  the  plumbing  business;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

96  H.  Meyers,  book-keeper  with  J.  M.  W.Jones  company;  examined  by 
defendants:  Have  heard  of  the  killing  of  Mr.  Degan  and  read   about   it, 
and  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the   defend- 
ants or  some  of  them  of  that  offense.     Have  no  opinion  now. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

97  Thomas  Carr,  examined  by  defendants:  Have  read  the  newspaper  ac- 
counts of  the  Haymarket  affair,  and  in  those  accounts  saw  the  names  of 
Fielden,  Spies  and  Parsons.     If  the  defendants,  Fielden,  Spies  and  Par- 
sons, are  the  same  persons  named  in  the  report,  I  have  an  opinion  as  to 
their  guilt  or  innocence,  which  I  have  expressed  to  others  and  still  enter- 
tain. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 


(  I29) 

VOL.  H 

To  the  State:  My  opinion  was  based  upon  the  account  simply.  Think 
I  could  try  the  case  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  evidence  if  taken  as 
a  juror.  Have  never  expressed  an  opinion  as  to.  the  truth  of  the  state- 
ment in  the  newpaper. 

98  To  the  Court:     Don't  know   the  defendants,  and   whatever  feeling  I 

have  in  reference  to  them   grows  out  of  the  report  which  I   have  heard 
and  read.     Have  not  talked  with  anybody  present  at  the  Haymarket. 
(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 
99-101     William   B.  Webb,   reside   in   Hyde  Park;  examined. 

(Challenge  for  cause  allowed.) 

102-3  E.  W.  Beedle,  engaged  with  the  South- Western  Railway  Association; 
examined  by  defendants:  Have  a  prejudice  against  the  organization  of 
laboring  men  and  the  establishment  of  trades  unions — a  decided  preju- 
dice, and  also  against  those  engaged  in  organizing  these  unions.  "  I  think 
they  are  a  hurt  to  the  country." 

(Challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled,  and   exception  by  de- 
fendants; challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

104  F.   C.   Nicholas,  in    the   railroad   business;  examined  by   defendants: 

Have  a  decided  and  firm  prejudice  against  socialists,  communists  and 
anarchists. 

(Challenged  for  cause;  challenge  overruled,  and   exception;  chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  defendants.) 
105-6      John   H.  Fitch,  hardware  dealer;    examined  by  defendants;  challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 
107-8       J.  R.  Bour,  grocer;    examined  by    defendants;    challenge   for   cause 

allowed. 

109  Frank  L.  Koontz,  railroad  clerk;  examined  by  defendants;  have  heard 

of  the  Haymarket  meeting;  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  which  I  still  entertain  and 
which  I  have  expressed  to  others. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

Examination  by  the  State:  The  opinion  is  based  partially  upon  the 
newspaper  reports  and  partly  on  conversations,  but  not  with  any  who 
no  were  present  at  the  Haymarket.  Believe  that  I  can  fairly  and  impar- 
tially render  a  verdict  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence.  Don't  know  that 
I  ever  made  the  statement  that  I  believed  the  statement  of  facts  which  I 
had  read  in  the  newspapers  to  be  true. 

(Challenge  for   cause    overruled,  and  exception;    challenged    per- 
emptorily by  defendants.) 


VOL.  H. 

in  Joseph  P.  Ravanaugh,  construction  agent  for  the  Chicago  and  North- 

Western  road;  examined  by  defendants;  have  heard  of  the  Haymarket 
meeting  and  the  killing  of  Officer  Degan.  From  all  that  I  have  read 
and  heard,  I  have  formed  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  which  I  expressed  to 
others. 

112  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

113  Harold  F.  Walcott,  in  the  storage  business;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenged  peremptorily. 

114  A.  Nelson,   clerk   in  a  stationery  house;  examined    by    defendants: 
Have  formed   an  opinion  as   to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
of  the  murder  of  Mr.  Degan,  which  I  still  entertain  and  have  expressed 
to  others.     It  is  a  good,  firm  conclusion  that  I  have  come  to. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

Examined  by  the  State:  My  opinion  is  based  solely  upon  what  I  have 
read  in  the  newspapers.     I  have  an  opinion  as  to  whether  one  or  more 

115  of  the  defendants  in  this  case  is  guilty  of  the  offense  charged,  but  that 
opinion  is  based  on  newspaper  report.     Think  I  could  fairly  and  impar- 
tially try  this  case  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence.     Never  told  anybody 
that  I  believed  what  I  had  read. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception;  challenged  peremp- 
torily by  defendants.) 

116-17  G.  Q.  Dow,  dry-goods  merchant;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 

118-19  E.  W.  Smith,  undertaker;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

120-1  Werner  Pappe,  railroad  clerk  in  the  Michigan  Central  office;  ex- 
amined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

122  C.  P.  Moynahan,  mantels  and  grates;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 

lenge for  cause  allowed. 

123-4  M.  J.  Wheeler,  railroad  engineer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

125-6  G.  S.  Calkins,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

127  E.  W.  Hale,  manufacturer  of  safes;  examined  by  defendants:  Am  de- 

cidedly prejudiced  against  the  organization  of  laboring  men  and  the  or- 
ganizations of  trades  unions,  etc.  Don't  believe  laboring  men  have  any 
right  to  meet  as  an  organized  society,  to  discuss  what  they  believe  for 


VOL.  H. 

their  general  interests,  and  am  prejudiced  against  them  if   they  do  that, 
even  if  they  keep  within  the  law. 

(Challenged   for  cause;  challenge  overruled,  and  exception  by  de- 
fendants; challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

128  J.  W.  Ellsworth,  miner   and   shipper  of  coal;  examined  by  defendants: 
Am  affected   by  labor  strikes   nearly  all  the  time,  and  have  a  prejudice 

^       against  coal  miners.     Am  decidedly  opposed  to   unions;  have   always  suf- 
fered from  them  and  feel  a  prejudice  against  all  such  organizations. 
(Challenged  for  cause.) 

129  To  the  Court:   The  organization  of  laboring  men  without  any  breaches 
of  peace,  have  you  any  objection  to?     A.     Well,  as  I  have  stated,  I  have 
always  suffered  from   their  organization.     I   could  not  say  that   I   would 
have  any  prejudice  against   a   supposed   organization  which    did  not  con- 
template nor  permit  any  breach  of  the  peace. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 
130-1       James  W.  Wolls,  dealer  in  and  manufacturer  of  furnaces,  ranges  and 

stoves;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
132-3       Walter  C.  Nelson,  in   real  estate  business;  examined   by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

134!  Edward  Brown,  examined  by  defendants:  My  home  is  Chicago,  but  at 

present  I  am  residing  out  of  the  city.  Am  doing  business  in  Wisconsin, 
traveling,  and  my  family  reside  in  Wisconsin.  My  wife  lives  there  and  I 
live  with  her.  We  have  a  home  in  Chicago,  but  my  wife  is  now  living  in 
Wisconsin.  I  presume  that  I  live  in  Wisconsin  and  simply  own  a  house 
here  which  I  have  rented  to  somebody  else. 
(Challenged  for  cause.) 

135  To  the  Court:     First  came  to  Chicago  in  1876.     Left  Chicago  about 
the  first  of  last   March.     We   had  been  keeping  house   in   Chicago  until 
about  March,  1885;  went  to  Kansas  to  go  into  business,  but  returned  to 
Chicago.    Am  in  the  lumber  business  in  Kansas,  with  an  office  in  Chicago 
Ship  lumber  from  Wisconsin  and  Chicago.     Voted  last  spring,  but  not  last 

136  fall.     Never  had  intended  to  make  my  permanent  home  elsewhere  than 
in  Chicago.     My  residence   now   in  Wisconsin  is  simply  for  the   accom- 
modation of  my  business. 

137  To  Defendants'  Counsel:!  went  into  Wisconsin  about  the  first  of  March 
and  my  family  moved  there  about  the  first  of  May.     It  is  uncertain  as  to 
when  we  shall  return,  possibly  not  in  five  vears. 


VOL.  H. 

To   the  Court:  When  we  went  to  Wisconsin,  we   thought  we  should 

138  remain  there  about  a  year  and  then  return  to  Chicago.  Was  in  Kansas 
hardly  a  year.  Then  came  to  Chicago  and  remained  about  a  month 
and  then  went  to  Wisconsin.  It  is  uncertain  when  I  will  come  back  from 
there  and  I  may  never  return. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception.) 
(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

139-40     H.  G.  Dim  mock,  soliciting  freight    agent    for  the  Milwaukee  and  St. 
Paul  railway;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

141-2       Samuel  Sawyer,  real  estate  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

143-4       Henry  Cook,  wholesale  grocer;    examined    by  defendants;    challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

145-6     -J.  H.  Cowles,  board  of  trade   market   reporter;    examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for   cause  allowed. 

147  H.  E.  Graves,  general    agent    Central  Vermont    Railroad    and    Fast 
Freight  Line;  examined  by  defendants:    Have  a  prejudice    against  the 
organization  of  labor  unions  or  trades  unions;  am  opposed  to  the  organi- 
zation   of    laboring    men   for   their    own   protection   and    advancement, 
although  they  confine  themselves  in  the  limits  of  the  law.     I  think  they 
have  no  right  to  meet  and  discuss  wages,  what   they  will  and  what  they 
won't  work  for. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 
To  the  Court:     Have  an  objection  to  workingmen  forming  an  organi- 

148  zation;  am  opposed  to  such  organizations;  think  that  individual  competi- 
tion should  be  the  rule.     I  object  to  the  laboring  men  forming  an  organi- 
sation even  for  the  purpose  of  governing  their  own  conduct. 

(Challenge    for   cause   overruled,  and    exception;    challenged  per- 
emptorily by  defendants.) 
149-50     F.   L.  Wellner,  newspaper  stenographer;  examined   by    defendants; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
151-3        Baron  Van    Dyke,  sign  painter;    examined    by  defendants;   challenge 

for  cause  allowed. 
154-5        W.  J.  Edbrooke,   architect;  examined    by  defendants;    challenge    for 

cause  allowed. 

156  (A  new  venire  about  to  be    called,  objection   was    made  by  defend- 

ants to  the  swearing  of  any  person   summoned   on   such  venire, 
and  also  there  was  a  challenge  to  the   array   upon   the   grounds 


(J33  ) 
VOL.  H. 

heretofore  submitted,  and  on  the  further  ground  that  the  jurors 
were  summoned  from  a  particular  class  or  classes  of  people, 
to  wit:  clerks,  merchants  and  salesmen,  and  not  generally  from 
the  body  of  the  county.  Challenge  and  motion  sworn  to  and  a 
demand  by  defendants  that  the  state  be  required  to  plead,  answer 
or  demur  to  the  motion  and  challenge. 

162  After     argument,    the     court     refused    to    make  any    order,    and 

refused   to  require   the   state  to  answer  either  in  law  or  in  fact. 
Defendants  except.) 
164-70     L.  R.  Stone,  salesman  for  D.  B.  Fisk  &  Co.;  examined;  challenge  for 

cause  allowed. 
171-2       Joseph  N.  Robinson,  wholesale  and  retail  tobacco  dealer;  examined  by 

defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
173-4       Fred  W.  Gardiner,  manager  Michigan  Stove  Company;  examined  by 

defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

175-6       M.  A.  Ford,  salesman  'wholesale  boots  and  shoes;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

I77~8       J.  E.  Aldrich,  board  of  trade  commission  merchant;  examined   by  de- 
fendants; challenged  peremptorily. 

179  W.  F.  Conklin,  residing   at   167  Dearborn    avenue;  examined   by  de- 
fendants:    Have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
defendants  of  the  murder  charged;  a  decided  opinion  which  I  still  enter- 
tain and  which  I  have  communicated  to  others. 

(Challenged  for  cause.) 

To  the  State:  My  opinion  is  based  on  what  I  read  in  the  newspapers; 
think  I  could  fairly  and  impartially  try  this  case  and  return  a  verdict 
from  the  evidence.  Have  never  told  any  one  that  I  believed  the  news- 
paper account. 

180  To  the  Court:     The  only  feeling  that   I  have  against    the  defendants 
grows  out  of  what  I  have  read  and  heard. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception;  challenged  peremp- 
torily by  defendants.) 
181-3       H.  C.  Metcalfe,  engaged  in  the  stationery  and  book  business ;  examined ; 

challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants. 

184-5        A.  S.  Phelps,  manager   Chicago  branch   Detroit  stove  works;  exam- 
ined by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

186  J.  S.  Atwater,    publisher,   examined    by    defendants:     Have    read    the 

newspaper  accounts  of  the  Haymarket  affair,  and  with  reference    to   the 


VOL.  H. 

187  defendants  have  concluded  that  the  law  has  probably  got  the  right  men. 
Have  formed  an  idea  that  the  defendants  might  be  connected   with  the 
murder  charged.     In  order  to  try  this  case  upon  the  evidence  introduced 
and  the  proofs  alone,  "  I  would   have  to  set  aside  a  good   deal  of  my 
personal  feeling."     I  understand  that  the  defendants  can  be    legally  con- 
victed only  in  the  event  of  the  evidence  establishing  beyond  all  reasonable 

1 88  doubt  their  conviction,  but  I  also  understand  that  it  is  sometimes   very 
difficult  to  get  the  evidence  before  the  jury."     "  Then  whatever  they  do 
not  get  they  do  not  consider?     A.     Yes,  but  they  may  have  conclusive 
opinions  of  their  own  in  regard  to  the  matter." 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

189-90     William    McElwaine,  cashier  for  Hiram   G.  Thompson,  manufacturer 
of  molding  and  picture  frames;  examined  by  defendants:  Have  formed 
an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  or  some  of  them. 
Q.     Is  your  condition  of  mind   such  that  you  can  listen  to  the  testi- 

190  mony  here  in  court  and  return  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict,  do  you  be- 
lieve?    A.     Well,  I  am  prejudiced  now.     Don't  know  whether  I  could 
lay  aside  that  prejudice  and  try  the  case  upon  the  testimony.     Have  a 
strong  prejudice  against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

191  Henry  Hoadley,  blank-book  and  stationery  business;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

192  James  S.  McKenzie,  salesman    with    D.  B.  Fisk  &  Co.;  examined  by 
defendants;  challenged  peremptorily. 

193-5  O-  B.  Tennis,  wholesale  millinery ;  examined  by  defendants:  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

196  Theodore   Kane,  manufacturer  of  school   furniture  and  slates,  exam- 
ined by  defendants.      Have  heard  of  this  case,  and  have  an  opinion  as  to 

197  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants — from  the  newspaper  accounts 
and  what  I  have  heard.     Would  try  to  be  impartial  if  chosen  as  a  juror 
in  all  cases,  but  as  to  whether  my  mind  is  in  a  condition  that  I  can  say  I 
believe  I  can  fairly  and  impartially  try  them,  I  guess  you  are  ahead  of  me. 
Have  given  the  best  answer  I  can.     Don't  know  whether  any  man  can 
tell  whether  he  can  lay  aside  his  prejudices. 

198  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

199  Edward  Wright,  livery  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

200-5  F.  E.  Moore,  merchant  and  dealer  in  clocks  and  diamonds;  examined 
by  defendants,  and  excused  by  court  on  the  ground  of  physical  inca- 
pacity. 


('35) 

VOL.  H. 

206-8  I.  P.  Rumsey,  board  of  trade  commission  merchant;  examined  by  de- 
fendants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

209-11  George  Robinson,  foreman  Sawyer's  livery  stable,  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

212,  13  A.  F.  Seymour,  salesman  in  the  flour  business;  examined  by  defend- 
ants; challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

214  Marks   Levy,  butcher,  examined  by  defendants:  Have   heard  of  the 
Haymarket    meeting  and   the  killing  of  Mr.  Degan.     Have  formed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants — a  pretty  strong 
opinion.     Read  the  papers  every  day.     Still  have  that  opinion,  and  have 
communicated  it  to  others  many  times.     Don't  think  it   would  influence 
my  verdict. 

215  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

216  Charles   Roberts,  book-keeper  for  Robert  Knight;  examined  by  de- 
fendants:    Have  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
in  this  case — a  strong  one.     Have  expressed  it  to  others,  and  still  enter- 
tain it.     Think  it  would  influence  my  verdict  in  this  case. 

Challenged  for  cause. 

To  the  State:  If  taken  as  a  juror,  I  could  probably  try  the  case  upon 

217  the  evidence  without  bias  from  my  present  opinion.     Think  I  could  try 
it  fairly.     Know  nothing  about  the  case  except  from  report.     Never 
talked  with   any  one  who  was  present  at  the   Haymarket,  or  that  pro- 
fessed to  know  anything  of  their  own   knowledge  about  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the   defendants.     Never  told   anybody  that  I  believe   what 
the  newspaper  said  was  true. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception.) 

Further  examined  by  defense:  Know  nothing  about  socialism,  com- 
munism or  anarchism.  Never  heard  anything  about  socialism  to  amount 
to  anything — not  enough  to  form  an  opinion.  My  opinion  is  such  that  I 
now  believe  it  would  influence  my  verdict,  from  what  I  have  read  since 
the  occurrence. 

(Challenge  for  cause  renewed.) 

To  the  Court:  Don't  know  and  never  saw  either  of  these  eight  men. 
This  is  the  first  time  to  my  knowledge  that  I  ever  saw  any  of  them. 
The  feeling  that  I  have  grows  out  of  what  I  have  heard  and  read  about 
this  occurrence.  Think  I  could  fairly  and  impartially  attend  to  the  evi- 
dence, and  render  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence. 

(Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and   exception.     Challenged   per- 
emptorily by  defendants.) 


VOL.  H. 

222  D.  F.  Enwright,  butter  and  cheese  commission  business;  examined  by 

defendants:  Heard  of  the  killing  of  Mr.  Degan  by  the  bomb  at  the 
Hay  market  on  the  4th  of  May.  I  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  from  what  I  have  read  in  the  papers. 

221  I  consider  it  a  firm  opinion  which  I  still  entertain,  and  have,  I  believe, 
expressed  to  others.     Don't  think  it  would  influence  my  verdict.     Think 

222  I  have  a  prejudice  against  communists.     I  think  it  is  a  strong  prejudice. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

223-4  ^-  Parker,  grain  commission  merchant;  examined  by  defendants; 
challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

225  W.  F.  Hartney,  railroad  clerk;  not  employed  by  any  company  at  pres- 
ent; examined  by  defendants:     Have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants,  what  I  still  entertain  and  have  expressed  to 

226  others;  don't  think  it  would  influence  my  verdict;  I  believe  I  could  listen 
to  the  testimony  and  determine  it  without  reference  to  my  opinion;  have 
a  prejudice  against  communists,  I  think. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

227  Philo  J.  Beveredge,  merchandise   broker;  examined   by    defendants: 
Have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants, 
which  is  moderately  firm;  don't  think  it  would  influence  my  verdict;  am 

228  opposed  to  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists;  decidedly  opposed,  have 
a  strong  opinion  against  them. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

229-30  M.  Hayden,  clerk  in  coal  office;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

231-2  J.  A.  Samuelson,  furniture  dealer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

233-6  Samuel  Falkner,  Chicago  manager  of  Proctor  &  Gamble,  of  Cincin- 
nati, soap  and  candle  business;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for 
cause  allowed. 

237  Daniel   Hugenon,    fire  insurance  business;  examined  by  defendants: 
Have  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  some 
of  them,  of  the  murder  of  Mr.  Degan — a  firm   opinion— which   I  have 

238  expressed  to  others  and  still  entertain;  don't  think  it  would   influence  my 
verdict;  have  a  strong  prejudice  against  the  views  entertained   by  social- 
ists, communists  and  anarchists. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

239-40  A.  E.  Dickerman,  furniture  business;  examined  by  defendants;  chal- 
lenge for  cause  allowed. 


(^37) 

VOL.  H. 

241  John  Monahan,  clerk  for  J.  T.  Lester  &  Co.;  examined  by  defendants; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
242-3       T.  C.   Baldwin,  manufacturer  of  perfume;  examined  by  defendants; 

challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
244-7       John  Bradford,   manufacturer  of  Tuttle's  retaining  valves;  examined 

by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 
248-9       Samuel  E.  Dunham,  commission  man  on  board  of  trade;  examined  by 

defendants;  challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

250  Adolph  W.  Kueker,    hardware    business;  examined    by    defendants: 
Formed  an  opinion  as  to  the   guilt  or  innocence   of   the  defendants,  or 
some  of  them,  which  I  still  entertain,  and  have  expressed  toothers;  think 
I  could,  notwithstanding  my  opinion,  listen  to  the  testimony  and   render 
an  impartial  verdict  in   the   case  under  the  evidence   produced   here  in 

251  court;  believe  the  opinion  I  now  have  would  not  prevent  my  doing  that; 
am  opposed  to  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

W.  H.  Madden,  in   the  pig-iron   rail  business;  examined   by  defend- 

2523     ants:  Have  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the   defendants,  or 

some  of  them,  which  I  still  entertain  and  have  expressed  to  others.  Think 

I  could  listen  to  the  testimony  that  is   introduced  in  court  and  render  an 

252  impartial  verdict  in  the  case.     I  am  opposed    to  the  views  of  socialism, 
communism  and  anarchism— decidedly  opposed  to  all  of  them. 

(Challenged  peremptorily.) 

253  G.    M.    Weinberger,    druggist;  examined    by  defendants:     Have  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  a  pretty  decided 
opinion,  which  I  have  expressed  to  others  and  still  entertain.     Believe  I 
could  listen  to  the  testimony  in  court,  the  charge  of  judge,  and  render  a 

254  fair  and  impartial  verdict  in  the   case.     Have  a  feeling  against  socialists, 
communists,   and    anarchists — a  decided  feeling- — a  very  determined  and 
decided  opinion. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

255  F.  A.  Ruck,  meat  market    business;  examined  by  defendants:     Have 
an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants.     I   could  listen 
to  the  testimony   introduced  in   court  and   the  charge  of  the  judge,  and 

256  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict,  uninfluenced  by  my  present  opinion. 
I  have  a  decided    opinion    against  socialism,  communism  and  anarchism, 

257  very  much  prejudiced  against  them;  very  firm  and  decided  opinion. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 


VOL.  H. 

258  R.  B.  Hooker,  boot  and  shoe  dealer;  examined  by  defendants:  Have 

a  kind  of  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  which  I 
have  not  expressed  to  others,  but  which  I  still  entertain.  Believe  I  could 
listen  to  the  testimony  and  decide  the  case  upon  the  evidence  alone,  and 
render  an  impartial  verdict. 

260  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

261-2  Michael  W.  McDonald,  clerk  with  Franklin  MacVeagh  &  Co.,  whole- 
sale grocers;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  caused  allowed. 

263  S.  A.   West,  livery  and   boarding  stable;    examined   by   defendants: 
Have  had  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of  the 

264  alleged  murder  of  Mr.    Degan,  but   I   dont  think  I  have  an  opinion    on 
the  question  now.     Have  a  prejudice  against   socialists,   communists  and 
anarchists. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 
266  Owen  Fay,  clerk  in  the  Grand  Pacific  livery  office;  examined  by  de- 

266  fendants:    Have  read  of  the  Haymarket  affair.     Am  somewhat  opposed 
to  socialism,  and  to  the  principles  of  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists, 
and  am  opposed  to  those  entertaining  such  views. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

267  P.  J.  Sullivan,  grocer  and  saloon  keeper;  examined  by  defendants: 
Have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
of  the  alleged  murder  of  Degan.     Have  a  very  strong  opinion  upon  the 

268n  question.  Am  decidedly  opposed  to  the  views  of  socialists,  communists 
and  anarchists.  Think  I  could  decide  the  case,  if  taken  as  a  juror,  with- 
out reference  to  my  opinion  or  prejudice. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

269  J.  H.  Trumbull,  real  estate  agent;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge 
for  cause  allowed. 

270  H.  Bowman,  tailor,  examined   by  defendants:    Have   no  opinion  upon 
the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants.      Have  heard  of 
the  Haymarket  matter,  and  did  form  an  opinion  in  reference  to  it.  Don't 
like  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists. 

378  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

273-4  William  H.  Rich,  grocer;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 
allowed. 

275  John  L.  Bennett,  wholesale  druggist;  examined  by  defendants:     Have 
an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt   or   innocence   of  the  defendants   of  the  crime 

276  alleged,  based  on  what  I   read   in   the  papers.     Think  I  could  disregard 
that   opinion   in   reaching   a   verdict.      Am    strongly   prejudiced    against 


(139) 

VOL.  H. 

socialists,  communists  and  anarchists.     Have  never  read  any  works  on 
the  subject. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  defendants.) 

277-9       A.  W.  Ramlin,  boots    and  shoes;  working    for    Doggett,  Bassett  & 
Hills;     examined  by  defendants.     Challenge  for  cause  allowed. 

280  M.  L.   Beers,    architect;     examined    by    defendants:       Have  a  firm 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants.     Don't  know  any- 
thing as  to  the  facts,  and  think  I  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and  render 

281  an  impartial  verdict  on  the  proofs  in  court.     I  have  a  very  decided  and 
enthusiastic  opposition  to  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists — very  de- 
cided.    Have  never  read  any  work  upon  these  subjects. 

(Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 
282-3       F.  B.  Wilson,  banker;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 
284-7       E.  V.  Lathrop,  banker;  examined  by  defendants;  challenge  for  cause 

allowed. 

288  W.  E.  Wait,  examined  by  defendants:     Formerly  chief  deputy  sheriff 
of  Cook  county;  not  in  business  now.     Have  read  and  heard  about  the 

289  Haymarket  matter  and  the  killing  of  Officer  Degan.     Don't  know  any- 
thing about  whether  the  defendants  are  legally  liable  for  the  throwing  of 
the  bomb.     Believe  I  can  listen  to  the  testimony  and  render  a  fair  ver- 
dict.    Since  leaving  the  sheriff's  office,  have  been  in  the  employ  of  the 
West  Park  board  of  the  Board  of  Education,  as  superintendent  for  some 

290  of  their  work.     I  suppose,  as   the   result   of   my  reading,  the  anarchists 
undertake  to  break  the  law.     Never  read   any  authorities  upon  social- 
ism, communism  and  anarchism,  but  anarchy  implies  an  absence  of   all 
law,  or  the  breaking  of  all  law. 

292  (Challenged  peremptorily  by  defendants.) 

293  H.  T.  Sanford,  examined  by  defendants:     Am  a  clerk  in  the  North- 
Western    railroad  office,  in    the   freight   auditor's  office,  and   have   been 

294  there  about  fifteen  months.     I  am  twenty-four  years  old.      Was  formerly 
a  petroleum  broker   in  New  York   for  a  time.     I    have    an  opinion  as  to 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  some  of   them,  of  the  murder 

295  of  Degan.     Based  upon  what  I   have  read,  my  opinion  is  as  to  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  some  of  the   defendants  of    the   throwing   of   the   bomb. 
Understand   that   a   defendant   is  entitled   to  be  tried   upon  the  evidence 

296  produced  in  court  alone,  and    believe   in   this  case  that  I  could  fairly  and 
impartially  try  and  determine  this  case  upon  the  evidence — listen  to  the 


( 

VOL.  H. 

testimony,  and  render  an  impartial  verdict.  Have  a  decided  prejudice 
against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists.  I  know  so  little  about  the 
case,  however,  that  it  is  hard  to  answer  whether  that  prejudice  would 

297  influence  my  verdict.      I  would  attempt  to  try  the  case  upon  the  evidence 

298  introduced  here.     Believe  that  I  would  be  able  to  determine  the  question 
from  the  witnesses  produced  and  their  testimony,  regardless  of  the  im- 

299  pression  that  I  now  have.      Have  no  acquaintance  with  any  of  the  attor- 
neys representing  the  prosecution,  nor  with  any  of  the  detectives  of  tne 
city  to  my  knowledge. 

(Challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.) 

300  Examined    by   State:     My  opinion    is   based  upon  what  I  read  in  the 
newspapers.     Never  talked  with  any  one  who  was  present  at  the  Hay- 
market  or  professed  to  know  personally  about  it.     Don't  recall  whether 
or  not  I  have  ever  said  to  any  one  that  I  believed  the  statements  of  facts 
in  the  newspapers  to  be  true,  "  but  still   I  have  no  reason  to  think   they 
were  false." 

301  (Challenge  for  cause  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendants.) 

It  was  stated  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  that  the  defendants  had  ex- 
hausted their  160  peremptory  challenges,  the  defendants,  upon  the  chal- 
lenge for  cause  to  Sanford  being  overruled,  stopped. 

302-6  Mr.  Sanford,  further  examined  by  state,  was  accepted  by  the  state, 
and  thereupon,  together  with  Greiner,  Mr.  Reed  and  Mr.  Adams,  was 
sworn  to  try  the  cause,  completing  the  panel  of  twelve. 


VOLUME  OF  EXHIBITS. 


Exhibit  i.     Photograph  of  plat  of  Haymarket  square  and  vicinity. 

Exhibit  2.  Photograph  of  plat  of  NefT's  Hall  on  Clybourne  avenue, 
two-story  frame  building. 

People's  Exhibit  3.  Photograph  of  plat  showing  basement  and  first 
floor  of  GreifP s  Hall,  54  West  Lake  street. 

People's  Exhibit  4.     Photograph  of  plat  of  Zepf's  Hall. 

People's  Exhibit  5.  Handbill  printed  in  German  and  English  calling 
the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  containing  the  line  in  English:  "Working- 
men,  arm  yourselves  and  appear  in  full  force,"  and  in  the  German  part 
the  German  equivalent. 

People's  Exhibit  6.  The  revenge  circular,  so  called,  printed  in  Ger- 
man and  English.  The  English  part  of  the  circular  is  as  follows: 

"  REVENGE. 

"  Workingmen!     To  arms! 

"  Your  masters  sent  out  their  blood-hounds — the  police — they  killed 
six  of  your  brothers  at  McCormick's,  this  afternoon.  They  killed  the 
poor  wretches,  because  they,  like  you,  had  the  courage  to  disobey  the 
supreme  will  of  your  bosses.  They  killed  them  becanse  they  dared 
ask  for  the  shortening  of  the  hours  of  toil.  They  killed  them  to  show 
you  '  Free  American  Citizens '  that  you  must  be  satisfied  and  contented 
with  whatever  your  bosses  condescend  to  allow  you,  or  you  will  get 
killed! 

"  You  have  for  years  endured  the  most  abject  humiliations;  you  have 
for  years  suffered  immeasurable  iniquities;  you  have  worked  yourselves 
to  death;  you  have  endured  the  pangs  of  want  and  hunger;  your 
children  you  have  sacrificed  to  the  factory  lords — in  short,  you  have 
been  miserable  and  obedient  slaves  all  these  years.  Why?  To  satisfy 
the  insatiable  greed,  to  fill  the  coffers  of  your  lazy,  thieving  master? 
When  you  ask  them  now  to  lessen  your  burden,  he  sends  his  blood- 
hounds out  to  shoot  you,  kill  you! 

"  If  you  are  men,  if  you  are  the  sons  of  your  grandsires,  who  have 
shed  their  blood  to  free  you,  then  you  will  rise  in  your  might,  Hercules, 
and  destroy  the  hideous  monster  that  seeks  to  destroy  you. 

"  To  arms,  we  call  you,  to  arms! 

"  YOUR   BROTHERS." 
141 


People's  Exhibit  7.  Copy  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  the  issue  of 
May  3,  1886,  printed  in  German,  containing  certain  articles,  translations 
of  which  were  read  and  appear  later  as  exhibits. 

People's  Exhibit  8.  Copy  of  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  issue  of  May  4, 
1886,  printed  in  German,  with  various  marked  articles,  translations  of 
some  or  all  of  which  were  offered  later  as  exhibits.  On  the  first  column 
on  the  fourth  page  of  this  issue,  after  two  paragraphs,  appears  the  fol- 
lowing: "  Briefkasten  Ruhe!"  the  words  being  printed  in  a  black-faced 
type  slightly  heavier  than  the  main  body  of  the  paper,  but  apparently 
the  same  as  that  in  which  the  first  paragraph  in  the  column  is  printed. 

People's  Exhibit  9.     Photograph  of  Rudolph  Schnaubelt. 

People's  Exhibit  10.  The  two  words,  in  manuscript,  "  Briefkasten 
Ruhe!" 

People's  Exhibit  loa.  Copy  of  the  English  portion  of  the  "  Revenge 
circular,"  so  called. 

People's  Exhibit  rob.  "Letter-box  Y;  Come  Monday  night."  (Trans- 
lation of  notice  in  the  Fackel  of  Sunday,  May  2d.) 

People's  Exhibit  12.  Photograph  of  front  view  and  floor  plan  of  442 
Sedgwick  street  (testified  of  as  the  house  occupied  by  Seliger,  and  in 
which  Lingg  roomed). 

People's  Exhibit  13.  Copy  of  map  in  Chicago  Daily  News  January 
14,  1886. 

People's  Exhibit  14.  Photograph  of  diagram  showing  plan  of  the 
four  floors  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  building,  107  5th  avenue. 

People's  Exhibit  15.  "Science  of  Revolutionary  War.  Manual  for 
instruction  in  the  use  and  preparation  of  nitro-glycerine,  dynamite,  gun- 
cotton,  fulminating  mercury,  bombs,  fuses,  poisons,  etc.,  etc.,  by  Johann 
Most,  New  York.  Printed  and  published  by  the  Internationale  Zeitung 
Verein  (International  News  Co.),  167  Williams  street." 

The  substance  of  this  treatise  is  as  follows: 

About  the  importance  of  modern  explosives  for  the  social  revolution, 
present  and  future,  nothing  need  be  said.  They  will  form  a  decisive 
element  in  the  next  epoch  of  the  world's  history.  It  is,  therefore,  natural 
that  the  revolutionists  of  all  countries  should  be  anxious  to  obtain  these 
explosives  and  learn  to  apply  them  practically.  Too  much  time  has  been 
wasted,  books  are  expensive,  etc.  Even  explanations  of  learned  treatises 
are  unavailing.  Persons  attempting  to  experiment  according  to  the  in- 
structions met  with  results  not  encouraging.  The  matter  was  expensive, 
dangerous,  etc. 


Some  under  experiment  have  produced  tolerable  gun-cotton,  and 
small  quantities  of  nitro-glycerine  converted  into  dynamite.  But  this 
was  of  small  value,  as  with  small  quantities  of  dynamite  little  can  be  done, 
and  it  is  expensive.  For  manufacture  of  dynamite  on  a  large  scale,  an  ex- 
pensive outfit  is  required  and  separate  quarters.  A  private  dwelling  cannot 
be  used.  Such  a  laboratory  must  be  kept  in  a  secluded  spot,  because  of  the 
stench  which  would  lead  to  discovery  and  ejection.  We  have  not, 
however,  abandoned  experiments,  but  concluded  that  dynamite  cannot  be 
successfully  supplied  by  private  manufacture,  but  must  be  obtained  from 
professional  manufacturers.  Not  an  ounce  of  dynamite  heretofore  used 
has  been  manufactured  by  revolutionists,  but  obtained  by  them.  Watch- 
men cannot  prevent  the  securing  of  a  supply.  Beside,  it  is  now  an  article 
of  commerce  for  many  purposes,  so  that  its  obtainment  cannot  be  pre- 
vented. The  purchase  is  easier  and  cheaper  than  private  manufacture, 
and  for  this  money  is  required.  Dynamite  factories  may  be  confiscated. 
The  purpose  of  this  treatise  is  to  publish  the  simplest  methods  for  the 
manufacture  of  explosives,  and  to  explain  their  use  and  effect.  In  this 
direction  many  mistakes  have  been  made,  attributable  to  ignorance. 
Dynamite  may  be  exploded  by  a  spark  of  fire,  but  it  is  not  so  usually,  for 
when  brought  in  contact  with  the  flame,  it  usually  burns  without  causing 
further  effects.  It  is  exploded  by  shock  and  therefore  must  be  handled 
carefully.  Explodes  easier  when  frozen  than  not,  and  freezes  a  few  de- 
grees above  zero,  Reaumer.  It  will  stand  a  high  degree  of  heat  without 
exploding.  Moisture  has  no  effect  upon  it,  as  the  principal  ingredient, 
nitro-glycerine,  is  greasy.  The  simplest  and  surest  way  to  explode  dyn- 
amite is  in  the  application  of  blasting  cartridges,  obtainable  in  all  large 
houses  dealing  in  blasting  or  shooting  utensils  (description  of  the  cart- 
ridge given).  In  important  undertakings,  procure  best  quality  of  fuse, 
which  looks  like  common  twine,  which  should  be  guarded  against  moist- 
ure by  being  soaked  in  tallow  or  tar,  or  incased  in  rubber.  When  explo- 
sion is  desired  from  a  distance,  a  wire  and  electric  battery  is  preferable, 
but  if  only  a  few  minutes  are  desired  to  get  away,  six  or  eight  inches  of 
fuse  will  answer,  attached  to  a  piece  of  touchwood.  For  a  bomb  only 
so  much  fuse  required  as  can  burn  in  the  interval  of  throwing — six  or 
eight  inches  is  enough,  determinable  by  experiment.  To  explode  dyna- 
mite by  fuse  and  percussion  cartridge,  the  bomb  or  other  vessel  should 
be  enclosed  on  all  sides  with  an  opening  through  which  the  blasting  cart- 
ridge may  be  introduced.  The  cartridge  should  reach  into  the  explo- 
sive material  two-thirds  of  its  length,  but  not  let  the  fuse  touch,  for  the 


(?44) 

fuse  might  set  fire  to  the  dynamite,  and  it  might  escape  in  flame  through 
the  orifice.  When  the  fuse  burns  to  the  cartridge  it  explodes  the  latter,  and 
that  the  dynamite.  The  fulminating  cap  should  be  tightly  squeezed  into 
the  petard,  to  avoid  dislocation.  Before  introducing  the  fuse  into  the  cap, 

9  cut  it  ofi'to  make  a  fresh  end.     In  important  undertakings,  the  greatest 
care  is    advisable.     The   fulminating   mercury  rests   loosely  and  may  fall 
out  of  the  cartridge,  which  should  therefore  be   examined  before  being 
used.     The  same  rules  obtain  as  to  nitro-glycerine,  but   the  latter  is  a 
more  powerful  explosive  than  dynamite,  the  latter  consisting  of  seventy- 
five  to  eighty  per  cent,  of  nitro-glycerine  and  twenty  to  twenty-five  per 
cent,   of  charcoal,  sawdust  or  other  proper  material.     On  account  of  its 
rapidity,  the  greatest  force  of  a  dynamite  explosion  is  in  the  direction  where 
it    meets   greatest  resistance.     No   very  heavy  or   very  strong  cylinder 
should  be  used  to   demolish   a  wall,  but  a   simple  tin   can   is  preferable. 

10  But  where  dynamite  is  proposed  to  be  exploded  among  a  number  of  per- 
sons, the  stronger  the  shell,  "  the  more  splendid  are  the  results." 

The  best  shape  for  a  bomb  is  globular,  as  furnishing  equal  resistance 
and  producing  the  same  explosive  effect  in  all  directions.  Iron  shells  are 
the  best;  obtainable  in  a  foundry.  Zinc  globes  are  not  to  be  despised, 
and  can  be  privately  manufactured;  but  the  latter  requires  obtaining  a 
brass  mold  from  a  trustworthy  expert.  With  such  a  mold,  fifty  semi- 
globes  of  moderate  size,  can  be  manufactured  in  a  day,  and  these  can  be 
soldered  together.  Every  bomb  must  have  an  opening,  about  three- 
quarters  of  an  inch  through  which  to  fill,  provided  with  a  screw  top  to 
be  put  in  after  the  filling  is  done,  with  a  hole  bored  through  the  top, 

1 1  large  enough  to  pass  a  detonating  cap  which  is  connected  with  the  fuse. 
After  the  bomb  is  filled  with  dynamite,  it  is  screwed  together,  and  then 
the  fuse  can  be  lighted  and  the  bomb  thrown.     "  A  trial  of  such  a  bomb 
has  had  a  most  excellent  result." 

A  zinc  globe  four  inches  in  diameter,  filled  with  dynamite,  was  experi- 
mented with.  The  explosion  was  like  a  cannon  shot,  bursting  a  large 
flagstone  into  twenty  pieces,  scattering  them  ten  to  fifteen  feet,  making 
a  hole  two  foot  in  the  ground,  and  at  thirty  to  forty  feet  distance  pieces 
of  the  shell  were  found  about  the  size  of  a  revolver  ball  and  very  ragged. 
If  this  bomb  had  been  placed  under  the  table  of  a  gluttonous  dinner  party, 
or  if  it  had  been  thrown  through  a  window  onto  the  table,  what  a 
beautiful  effect  it  would  have  had. 

Another  method — a  piece  of  gas  or  water  pipe  a  few  inches  long;  cut 

12  a  screw  on  each  end  and  cover  with  a  screw  cap,  and  for  explosion,  pro- 


('45) 

ceed  as  with  the  other  bomb.  Such  missiles  are  easily  manufactured, 
cheap,  and  against  a  crowd  must  produce  brilliant  effects.  No  certainty 
of  one  bomb  being  successful — may  result  only  in  broken  windows,  etc. 
Any  ordinary  house,  will  resist  such  explosions,  and  in  operating  against 
houses,  a  different  method  must  be  pursued.  Percussion  primer  bombs, 
can  be  provided  by  making  pyramid  or  other  shaped  shells  with  a  per- 
cussion cap  on  each  side,  so  that  when  thrown,  whichever  side  strikes 
will  explode  the  cap;  but  these,  if  falling  in  soft  ground,  are  ineffective. 

13  The  cap  must  be  secured  tightly  so  as  not  to  fall  off,  and  the  detonating 
chamber  closed  at  its  bottom  with   fulminating   mercury  and    the   space 
being  filled  with  fine  gunpowder,  a  second  explosive  cap  being  placed  at 
the  bottom  of  the  vent  in  the  dynamite  which  is  to  be   used   preferably. 

14  A  bomb  filled  with    fulminating   mercury  would    have   to    have  a    very 
strong  shell  to  be  effective,  and  filling  a  bomb  with  fulminating  mercury 
is    dangerous,    and    the    fulminate    is    more    expensive    than    dynamite. 
Besides   all  which  the  primer  bombs  described  are  more  expensive  and 
difficult  of  construction  than  a  globular  bomb.      We   are  of  opinion  that 

15  the  fuse  construction    (with   detonating   chamber)  is  more  practical  and 
reliable.     The  best  construction  for  a  bomb,  that  will  explode  by  concus- 
sion, is    one    in  which   is    inserted    a    small    glass    tube,  slightly    bent, 
closed  at  each  end  by  melting,  and  then  inserted  in  a  shell  so  that  the  ends 
of  the  tube   meet  the  opposite  sides  of  the   chamber;  around   this  inner 
tube  is  placed   another   tube  full  of  a  mixture  of  chlorate  of  potash  and 
sugar;  and  around  this  combined  tube  the  chamber  is  filed    with  dyna- 
mite and  the  shell  closed.     When  this   bomb   is   thrown,  the   concussion 
breaks  the  glass  tube,  the  sulphuric  acid  ignites  the  potash  mixture,  and 

1 6  the  result  is  an  explosion  of  the  dynamite.     In  practical  use,  the  power  of 
dynamite  is  illustrated   in   mining   blasts,  etc.,  small  quantities   producing 
wonderful  results,  which  are  dependent  upon  the  confinement  of  the  dyn- 
amite.    In   attacking    buildings,  unless  the   dynamite   can  be  introduced 
into  chimneys  or  other  orifices,  considerable   quantity    must    be  used  to 
shake  the  building   or  bring  it    down.     For  ordinary  buildings,  nothing 
less    than    ten    pounds    will    do,   and  'for    massive    buildings,    barracks, 
churches,  etc.,  forty  or  fifty  pounds  may  be  required,  and  even  then,  will 

17  not  be  effective  unless  skillfully  placed.     The  explosives  should  be  placed 
under  or  within    a   foundation    or  close  to  the  main    wall,  just   above  the 
ground,  but  not  packed   in  a  shell — simply    in   tin   cylinders,  the   length 
of  the  cylinder  being  proportionate  to  the  breadth  of  the  breach  desired. 
Care  must  be  taken  not  to  break  the  fuse. 


1 8  Waterproof  fuse  may  be  had   ready  made.     Following  are  results  of 
experiments  by  the  war   department  of   Austria.     Four  pounds  of  dyna- 
mite in  a  tin  box  made  a  hole  two  feet   by  eighteen  inches  in  a  one-foot 
brick  wall;  seven  pounds  made  a  hole  thirteen  by  fifteen  inches  in  a  two- 
foot  brick  wall;  twenty-seven  pounds  made  a  hole  fifteen  feet  square  in  a 
three-foot  brick    wall;  forty-three    pounds   knocked  down   a   brick  wall 
three  and  a  half  feet  thick.  Good  results  were  obtained  by  loading  down 
the  dynamite  with    sandbags  of  earth.     Two   pounds  at   the  bottom  of 
a  wall  sunk  in  the  earth   and  covered   with  a  foot  and  a  half  of  ground, 
shaking  down  seven  feet  of  a  wall  eighteen  inches  thick;  fourteen  pounds 
of  dynamite  in  two  tin   cylinders,  each  two  feet  long  and  three  inches  in 
diameter,  made  a  breach  in  a  wall  six  and  one-half  feet  wide  and  seven 

19  feet  high.  In  a  foundation  of  a  four-foot  brick  wall  three  holes  were  dug, 
eight  feet  apart  and  seven  and  one-half  feet  deep,  and  six  pounds  of  dyn- 
amite in  a  tin  box  placed  in  each  hole   and  exploded  simultaneously  by 
electricity.     The   result  was  the   demolition    of  the  wall   for  a  distance 
of  twenty-five  feet.     As  compared    with  dynamite,  sixty  pounds  of  gun- 
powder in  tin  boxes,  exploded   against  a  stone   wall,  produced  no  other 
effect  than  to  blacken  it,  the  damage  to  the  wall  being  eight  to  ten  times 

20  less,  even  when  confined,  than  in  the  case  of  dynamite.     In  case  of  war 
the  destruction  of  bridges,  etc.,  is  important,  and  here  dynamite  has  been 
especially  effective.     As  examples:     Two  pounds  of  dynamite  in  a   tin 
box,  exploded  on  a   wrought-iron    plate,    two   inches   thick,    tore    a    hole 
through  the  plate.     Twenty-six  pounds  of  dynamite  in   eight   tin  boxes, 
laid  one  on  another,  destroyed  an  iron  single  track  railroad  bridge,   pipe 
construction,  securely  built.     Seven  pounds  of  dynamite   exploded    near 
a  railroad  track  threw  oft"  one  rail  and  splintered  the   second,   destroying 
the  nearest  tie.     A  train  following  immediately,  perhaps  imperial  special, 
might  have  "  gone  to  the  devil."     Other  experiments  also  mentioned. 

21  To  thaw  dynamite,  which  freezes  very  easily,  the   best   plan  is  to  put 
the  dynamite  in  a  waterproof  vessel  into  a  larger   one   containing  water. 
Frozen  dynamite  is  dangerous   when  ignited,  and  may   fail   to  explode  if 
special  pains  are  not  taken.     Failures  should  be  avoided  in  revolutionary 
movements.     It  is  cheapest  to  buy  explosives  or  confiscate  them,  but  in- 
struction  given   for    manufacture,    avoiding   technical   terms.       Advises 

22  processes  which  we  have  tried  successfully,   the   principles  of  operation 
resting  on  the  method  discovered  bv  Ditmar,  the  New   York   dynamite 
manufacturer,  but  simpler. 

To  manufacture  dynamite,  there  are  mixed,  first,  two    parts   sulphuric 


(«47) 

acid  with  one  of  nitric  acid;  second,  there  is  added  one-eighth  of  the 
whole  quantity  of  glycerine.  Scientists  have  overstated  the  dangers  of 
this  manufacture,  with  the  result  that,  on  the  part  of  revolutionists,  less 

23  nitro-glycerine  has  been  manufactured  than   would  otherwise  have  been. 
Sulphuric  acid  of  at  least  forty-five  degrees  can  be  had  of  any  wholesale 
druggist  in  nine-pound  bottles;  nitric  acid  of  at  least  sixty -six  degrees  in 
seven-pound  bottles.     To  eighteen   pounds   of  sulphuric   acid  you    need 
nine  pounds  of  nitric  acid   and   three  and   one-half  pounds   of  glycerine. 
Mixing  can  be  done   in  an  iron    pot,  enameled,  or  in    any    porcelain   or 
glazed  vessel.     In  an  outer  vessel  pour  water  till  it  reaches  three-fourths 
of  the  height  of  the  inner  vessel,  kept  cold  by  the  use  of  ice.     Put  the 
sulphuric  acid  into  the  inner  vessel;  add  half  the  quantity  of  nitric  acid, 
stirring    with     a     glass     rod     and     pouring     in     slowly.       To    get    rid 
of    the     offensive     and      unhealthy     fumes,      cover     the      mouth      and 
the    nose   by    a   handkerchief;  keep  the  windows  open  and    mix   near 
or  under  an  open  flue.      When  the   mixture  is  completed,    cover    with 
a  piece  of  glass  and  leave  for  fifteen  to  twenty  minutes  to  cool  off,  the 

24  mixture  causing  a  high  degree  of   heat;  then  add   the  glycerine,  stirring 
briskly  with  the  glass  rod  while  pouring.     If  yellowish  red  fumes  arise, 
indicating  conflagation,  stop  pouring  the  glycerine  and  stir  more  briskly, 
and  afterwards  resume  the  addition  of  the  glycerine.     After  completing 
the  mixture,  stir  for  ten  minutes  or  so;  then  lift  out  the  inner  vessel  con- 
taining the  mixture,  and  pour  it  into  the  water  in  the  outer  vessel  slowly. 
A -yellowish  oil  will  settle  to  the  bottom,  which  is  nitro-glycerine.     After 
some  time  pour  ofFthe  water.     Then  pour  the  nitro-glycerine  for  further 
purification  into  a  bowl  filled  with  good   soda   lye,  stirring  briskly,  so  as 
to  cause  all  of  the  nitro-glycerine  to  come  in  contact  with  the  lye;  let  set- 
tle and  pour  off  the  lye,  when  the  nitro-glycerine  can  be  bottled.     Nitro- 
glycerine in  a  natural  state  being  dangerous  from   concussion,  it  is  desir- 

25  able  to  manufacture  the  dynamite  at  once.     To  do  this,  take  sawdust  or 
pulverized    charcoal,  or  a  mixture   equal    parts   powder,   sugar,   dust   of 
saltpetre  and  wood  pulp;  put  this  material  into  a  vessel  and   pour  on  the 
nitro-glycerine,  kneading  it  with  a  wooden   ladle    to   the  consistency  of  a 
thick  dough;  pack  in  oil  paper  or  tin  boxes.      Long  continued  handling 
of  dynamite  with  the  bare  hands  produces  severe  headache. 

Gun-cotton   is   also  an  explosive,  not    much    inferior  to  dynamite.     To 
prepare  it,  take  unglued  cotton  wadding,  boil   in  soda    lye,  dry  carefully, 

26  either  in  the  air  or    upon  hot   iron  plates   or  bricks.     The  cotton  is  then 
dipped  in  the  mixture  of  acids  (sulphuric  and  nitric),  and  after  being  left 


(148) 

until  thoroughly  saturated,  is  taken  out,  squeezed  dry,  but  not  with  the 
hands,  and  is  then  put  in  a  vessel  with  soda  lye;  after  fifteen  minutes 
again  taken  and  squeezed  out,  which  may  be  done  with  the  hand,  and 
which  is  repeated  two  or  three  times,  but  each  time  in  new  warm  water. 
Then  the  wadding  must  be  dried  by  atmosphere,  not  by  hot  material. 
It  is  not  extensively  used,  because  it  ignites  in  warm  sunshine.  Use  im- 
mediately after  manufacture,  or  keep  in  water  until  required,  and  then 
dry  and  use.  Unconfined  gun-cotton  burns  without  explosion,  but  is  ex- 
plosive when  placed  in  cylindrical  bombs  and  rammed  in  securely.  It 

27  can  be  exploded   by   fire   without   concussion.     It  is  not  to  be  despised, 
because  it  is  more  easily  manufactured  than  dynamite  and  has  an  inno- 
cent appearance. 

Gun-cotton  saturated  with  nitro-glycerine  results  in  nitro-gelatine, 
incredibly  explosive  and  far  superior  to  dynamite,  but  its  keeping  on 
hand  is  dangerous,  and  the  mixture  should  therefore  immediately  pre- 
cede its  contemplated  use. 

Near  Washington  the  following  experiment  was  recently  made:  By 
a  dynamite  gun  bombs  were  thrown  containing  eleven  pounds  nitro-gel- 
atine two  thousand  feet  against  solid  rock.  One  bomb  tore  a  hole  six 
feet  deep  and  twenty-five  feet  in  diameter  in  the  rock,  and  ten  tons  of 
rock  were  cut  loose  and  thrown  in  all  directions,  while  stones  from  ten 
to  twelve  pounds  were  carried  about  half  a  mile.  The  spectators,  nearly 

28  all  military  men  from  foreign  countries,  concurred  that  an   ordinary  ves- 
sel would  be  destroyed   by  the   explosion   of  a  single  such  bomb,  while 
an  iron-clad  receiving  it  in  the   side  would  thereby  be   disabled.     Revo- 
lutionists  cannot   manufacture  dynamite  cannon  (which  are   about  forty 
feet  long),  but  they  can  make  bombs    and   use   ordinary  slings.     "  That 
which  Deduces  what  had  been  solid  rocks  into   splinters  may  not  have  a 
bad  effect  in  a  court  or  monopolists'  ball  room." 

Fulminate  of  mercury  is  a  powerful  explosive,  consisting  of  mercury, 
sulphuric  acid  and  alcohol,  equal  weights,  which  must  be  mixed  in  a 
clean  glazed  vessel,  in  cold  water  or  ice,  the  mercury  being  first  put  into 
the  vessel  and  the  rest  stirred  in  slowly,  the  acid  being  added  first,  and 
enough  of  it  to  secure  the  entire  solution  of  the  mercury;  pour  in  the 

29  alcohol  after  cooling.     The  product,  a  gray  substance,  is  then  spread  on 
tissue  paper  to  dry,  and  a  little  potash  is  added  to  reduce   the  danger  of 
explosion.     It  explodes  at  a   temperature   of   150   degrees.     Silver  may 
be  substituted  for  mercury,  giving  a  better  product,  but  more  expensive. 
Experimenting  should  be  done  with  very  small   quantities  to  begin  with. 


(  M9  ) 

Fulminate  of  mercury  explodes  under  a  spark,  as,  for  instance,  a  gun- 
cap  and  bombs  charged  with  this  explosive  explode  by  concussion  sim- 
ply.' In  filling  a  bomb  great  care  must  be  taken,  as  no  ramming  or  con- 
cussion is  allowed,  and  the  filling  is  therefore  better  done  while  the  mix- 
ture is  moist,  and  when  it  will  settle  into  shape;  but  in  this  event  the 

30  shell  must  be  left  open  until  completely  dry.     In  closing   the   shell  care 
must  be  taken  not  to  cause  any  spark  or  ignition,  which   would   be  fol- 
lowed by  an  explosion.     In  modern  wars  they  do  not  confine  themselves 
10  explosives  and  weapons  of  any  particular   description,  but   are  aimed 
to  weaken  the  enemy   by  all  means  possible. 

A  particularly  effective  weapon  is  fire.  For  example,  in  Moscow, 
against  Napoleon,  and  by  the  Prussians  in  France  in  1870-71.  There- 
fore, in  a  list  of  revolutionary  war  utensils,  the  article  serviceable  for  in- 
cendiary purposes  must  not  be  omitted.  A  very  effective  mixture  is 
of  phosphorous  and  bi-sulphide  of  carbon.  Buy  yellow  phosphor, 
which  is  always  kept  under  water,  and  must  never  be  touched  with  the 

31  bare  hands,  but  taken  from  the  containing  bottle  with  a   fork  or  stick- 
put  in  a  porcelain   bowl  full  of  water  and   cut  into   portions  about  the 
size  of  a  bean  under  water.     The  phospor  must  be  kept  in  a  bottle  with 
a  glass  stopper,  fitting   air-tight.     Fill  a  bottle  with  bi-sulphide  of  car- 
bon, drop  in  the  phospor  quickly  and  close;  then  shake  slowly  until  dis- 
solved.    The  fluid  is  then  ready  for  use,  and  if  poured  on  rags  will  re- 
sult  in  spontaneous  combustion,    after  a  time.     Petroleum    added    re- 
tards the  combustible  action,  and  may  be  used  when  one  desires  to  make 
good  his  escape.     Experiments  with  this  mixture  were  made  in  France 
by   detectives, 

32  Another  incendiary  article  is  thus   constructed:     Take    a  tin  fruit  jar, 
remove  the  cover;  cut  a  hole  in  the  center  of  the  cover,  into  which  insert 
a   medicine   glass;    then   resolder  the   cover;    pour  in  benzine;  fill  the 
medicine  glass  with  gunpowder,  and  close  with  a  stopper,  passing  a  fuse 
through    the    stopper;  light    the    fuse;  the   result   is,   after   a   time,  the 
explosion   of    the   powder,   bursting   the   can    and  scattering  the  benzine 
blazing  in  every  direction.      A  hundred  men   equipped  with    such  imple- 
ments, scattered  through  a  city,  could  achieve  more  than  twenty  batteries 
of  artillery,  and  the  thing  is  easily  made,  and  cheap. 

There  may  be  cases  in  which  the  revolutionist  must  abandon  .shelter 
and  sacrifice  his  own  life  in  the  warfare  against  the  property-owning 

33  beast  of  society^  but   no  revolutionist  should   unnecessarily  endanger  his 
own  life.      An  unknown  danger  is   the    more  terrible.     Therefore,  revo- 
lutionists should  act  singly  or  in  as  small  numbers  as  possible. 


Owing  to  the  failure  of  various  attacks,  the  idea  has  been  suggested 
to  poison  weapons  used  for  assault.  But  this  idea  has  never  been  car- 
ried out,  owing  to  the  expense  and  difficulty  of  procuring  suitable 

34  poisons.     The  best  substance  for  poisoning  arms  is   curari,  used  by  the 
South  American  Indians  on   their  arrows.     It  is  absolutely  fatal,  but  is 
high  priced.      A  dagger  red-hot   and    hardened   in   a   decoction   of  rose 
laurel  is  fatal.     Pulverize  phosphor  mixed   with  gum  arabic  and  applied 
to  the  weapon  is  also  fatal.     So  with  verdigris.    So  as  to  cadaver  poison 
and  prussic  acid,  but  poisons  must  always  be  prepared  immediately  before 
use,  as  they  dissolve  in  the  atmosphere  and  become  innocuous. 

35  The    successful    arming   of  the    people   cannot    be   achieved    by  one 
definite   procedure,   but  by  utilizing   all  different  circumstances.      The 
best  thing  would  be  for  organized  workingmen    throughout  the  civilized 
world    to    provide    themselves    with    muskets    and    ammunition    and   to 
thoroughly  drill,  but  this  is  almost  impossible,  as  the   authorities  would 
interfere    with    them,  and    throughout    Europe    even    the    purchase    of 
weapons  by  the  common  people  is  made  difficulty,  while  secret  purchase 

36  subjects  to  the  charge  of  "  constructive  treason."    In  America  every  one 
has    the    constitutional    right    to  arm,   but    the    carrying   of    concealed 
weapons  is  prohibited,  while,  if  carried  openly,  that  also  would  soon  be 
prohibited.     That  is   not  all.     Hardly  had  a  military  organization  been 
effected  in  Illinois,  when  the  legislature  passed  a  law  allowing   to  march 
and  drill  only  the  state  organizations.     A  litigation  has  resulted  which  is 
as  yet  undetermined.     There  is  evidenced  also  among  legislators,  a  dis- 
position to  prohibit  dynamite  except  for  industrial  purposes  and  national 

37  defense.     The  workingmen   of  America   cannot  arm   themselves  unless 
they  do   it    soon.     If  they   arm   themselves  at   once,  well;  if  not,  it   will 
soon  be  difficult  or  impossible,  and  "  you  will  find   yourselves  defenseless 
and  powerless  in   the  face  of  a   mob   of  murderers  in  uniform,  armed 
to  the    teeth."      The    price  of    a    watch    would    buy   a    fine    breech- 
loader.    We  do    not    take    much    stock     in    the    arming   of    organiza- 
tions,   for     several     reasons,    among     others,     that     it     will     cause     a 
great     pressure     upon    those     who    are     unwilling     to    join,    which     is 
in  violation  of  the  anarchistic  principle  and  dangerous  to  the  existence  of 
the  organization.      Besides  which,  it  would  involve   great  financial    sacri- 
fice to  those  who  prefer  to  do  nothing  for  the  cause.  Labor  organizations 

38  should  therefore  content  themselves  with  allowing  arming  by  those  who 
desire  to  do  so.     They  may  buy  arms  at  wholesale,  and  retail    to  those 
who  wish  to  purchase,  on  the  installment  plan,  if  necessary,  at  cost,  thus 


(  'Si  ) 

saving  expense  without  trenching  upon  the  assets  of  th.e  society.  Mus- 
kets are  not  the  only  desirable  weapons;  good  revolvers,  daggers,  poisons 
and  firebrands  are  destined  to  be  of  immense  service  during  a  revolution. 
The  modern  explosives  deserve  attention  first  of  all.  Quantities  of 
nitro-glycerine  and  dynamite,  numerous  hand  grenades  and  blasting 
cartridges  should  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  revolutionists,  these  things 
acting  as  the  proletariats'  substitute  for  artillery.  These  are  particularly 

39  recommended    to    European    revolutionists,  as    they    cannot    buy  rifles. 
"  Taken  all  in  all,  our  motto  is:     Proletarians  of  all  countries,  arm  your- 
selves; arm  yourselves,  no  matter  what  may  happen,  the  hour   of  battle 
draws  near." 

Certain  precautions  should  be  adopted  by  the  revolutionist  if  he  wishes 
to  address  an  associate  in  writing.  He  should  use  a  fictitious  address, 
which  should  be  frequently  changed,  and  its  contents  ought  to  be  shaped 
with  a  view  to  the  possibility  of  its  falling  into  the  wrong  hand.  He 
should  never  mention  the  true  name  of  his  confederates.  Initials  or  nick- 
names are  preferable.  There  should  never  be  a  communication  even  to 
a  comrade  of  a  fact  which  it  is  not  necessary  for  him  to  know.  Your 

40  right  name  should  never  be  signed.  The  use  of  a  cipher  is  not  desirable, 
because  it  is  a  suspicious  method  and  is  very  liable  to  detection.     If  used 
at  all,  the  key  to  the  cipher  should  be  communicated   only  to   one   con- 
federate.    "  All  letters  received,  which  bear  secrets,  should  always   be 
burned  immediately  after  reading."     Revolutionists  should   never   retain 
things  which  would  lead  to  detection,  and  should   always   be  on   guard 
against  detectives  and  police.    Neither  through  friendship,  love  or  family 
ties  should  you  talk  unnecessarily.     These   rules    apply  particularly  "  to 
all  enterprises  that  are  directed   against   the  prevailing   disorder  and  its 
laws."     If  a  revolutionary  deed  is   proposed,  it  should  not   be  talked 
about,  but    silently  pursued.       If  assistance  is  indispensable,  it  may  be 
chosen,  but  a  misstep  in  this  is  fatal.     The  society  of  suspected    persons 

41  should  be  carefully  avoided,  thus  spies  would  be  rendered  harmless.   Self- 
composure  in  arrest  is  essential.     Only  when  the  arrest  can   be   success- 
fully resisted  should  there  be  resort  to  it,  or    when  it  becomes  a  question 
of  life  and  death.     But  if  you  are  sure  that   the   arrest  is   on    suspicion, 
you  protest    energetically  and    submit   quietly.     To  examinations   by   a 
judge,  the  revolutionist  should  submit  only  so   far   as   he  can    prove    an 
alibi;  admit  nothing  except  what  is  proven.     If  all  means  of  deliverance 
are  exhausted,  then  the  prisoner  should  defend   his  deed  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  revolutionist  and  anarchist,  and  convert  the  defendant's  seat 


into  a  speaker's  stand.  Shield  your  person  as  long  as  possible,  but  when 
you  are  irredeemably  lost,  use  your  respite  for  the  propogation  of  your 
principles.  We  thus  speak  because  we  observe  that  even  expert  revolu- 
tionists violate  its  plainest  rules. 

42  Appendix. 

We  have  received  from  a  layman  an  essay  presenting  another  means 
of  preparing  fulminate  of  mercury,  which  essay  reads  as  follows:  Use 
an  ordinary  retort;  to  precipitate  the  fumes,  put  the  neck  of  the  retort 
in  water,  put  in  five  grains  of  mercury  and  fifty  grains  of  nitric  acid; 
after  this  has  cooled,  add  sixty  grains  of  best  alcohol  in  small  quantities, 
shaking  the  retort  well  while  mixing;  upon  the  neck  of  the  retort  put 
an  india  rubber  tube,  thirty  or  forty  centimeters  long,  passing  through  a 
vessel  filled  with  water;  light  an  alcohol  flame  under  the  retort  until 
the  mixture  begins  to  boil;  the  fulminate  of  mercury  crystallizes;  pour 

43  off  the  liquid  residue;  refine  the  fulminate  in  cold  water   several  times, 
and  then  boil  the  water;  spread  on  tissue  paper  to  dry,  in    a   high  tem- 
perature; then  close  carefully  to   prevent   absorbing   moisture.     Thus 
writes  our  correspondent. 

As  a  substitute  for  a  blasting  cartridge,  where  the  latter  cannot  be 
conveniently  obtained,  cut  a  piece  oft"  the  closed  end  of  a  metal  pen- 
holder, say  an  inch  and  a  half  long,  and  fill  this  with  the  caps  ordinarily 
used  for  toy  pistols,  stuffing  them  in,  then  add  a  fuse  and  the  cartridge 
is  ready  for  use. 

44  Pulverized   seeds    of  stramonium,  baked   in   almond   or    other    cake, 
furnish  an  effective  poison  to  be  used  against  a  spy,  informer,  minion    of 
the  law,  or  other  scoundrel. 

Invisible  ink  is  recommended  for  revolutionary  correspondence.  To 
mislead  spies,  write  an  ordinary  letter,  and  then  write  with  the  invisible 
ink  between  the  lines,  or  on  the  reverse  pages,  or  send  an  old  book  and 
write  on  the  blank  pages,  or  write  on  the  inside  of  paper  wrappers. 
There  are  invisible  inks  which  are  developed  by  heat,  but  these  are  not 
recommended,  as  heat  is  always  applied  to  suspicious  correspondence  by 
the  detectives.  The  chemical  is  preferable.  If  you  write  with  nitfate 
of  cobalt  (invisible),  it  becomes  bluish  if  you  spread  oxalate  of  potash 
over  it.  Nitrate  of  copper  made  legible  by  spreading  cyanide  of  potas- 

45  sium  on.      And  so  if  written  with  hydro-chlorate.     There  are  still  other 
methods,  but  enough  has  been  suggested. 

We  speak  now  of  Sprengel's  acid  and  neutral  explosives.     Sprengel 


(153) 

has  found  that  hydro-carbons,  mixed  with  vehicles,  can  be  exploded  by 
a  cap  like  dynamite.  For  instance,  equal  parts  of  carbolic  acid  dissolved 
in  nitric  acid  gives  an  explosive.  By  the  solution  of  carbolic  in  nitric 
acid,  picric  acid  is  produced;  in  the  mixture  heating  takes  place  which 
should  be  cooled  off.  Mix  the  picric  acid  with  nitric  acid  and  an  ex- 
plosive as  strong  as  nitro-glycerine  is  produced,  the  proportions  being 
58.3  of  picric  acid  to  41.7  of  nitric  acid.  If  instead  of  carbolic  acid,  ben- 
zine is  used,  the  result  is  nitro-benzole.  Add  nitric  acid  in  the  proportion 
of  71.92  nitric  acid  to  28.08  nitric-benzole,  and  you  have  an  explosive. 
These  various  liquids  can  be  utilized  by  absorbing  them  into  chlorate  of 
potash,  moulded  into  suitable  shapes,  which  can  be  exploded  ordina- 

47  rily  by  a  percussion  cap;    but  these  preparations  are   not   as   handy   as 
dynamite,  and  can  be  used  only  in  glass,  stone  or  iron  shells,  other  shells 
being  affected  by  the  acid,  but  they   are   easier  to   produce    than    nitro- 
glycerine. 

Prussic  acid  may  be  prepared  as  follows:  Take  thirty  grains  yellow 
prussiate  of  potash,  twenty  grains  sulphuric  acid  and  forty  grains  of 
water;  heat  the  mixture  in  a  retort  and  catch  the  fumes  in  a  well-cooled 
receiver.  It  is  desirable  that  the  receiver  should  be  bent  and  furnished 
with  water  in  its  lower  portion,  through  which  the  fumes  must  pass, 
thus  aiding  condensation.  There  must  be  a  hollow  globe  to  receive  the 
accumulating  prussic  acid.  It  is  very  volatile,  and  upon  drying  up  no 
poisonous  substance  remains.  Avoid  the  escaping  fumes.  Proceed 

48  under   a   well-ventilated    flue.     Prussic   acid  is   not   useful  for  poisoning 
arms,  but  is  for  liquors — looks  like  water  and  smells  and  tastes  like  bitter 
almonds.     May  be  preserved  in  the  dark  for  a  long  time. 

For  combustion,  we  add  the  following  suggestion:  Take  blotting 
paper,  saturate  it  with  the  phosphor  dissolved  in  carbon,  as  published 
recently  in  the  Freiheit,  and  put  it  in  an  unclosed  envelope,  with  pulver- 
ized chlorate  of  potash.  Close  the  letter,  and  in  about  a  quarter  of  an 
hour,  upon  opening  it,  an  explosion  and  intense  blaze  will  ensue.  These 
letters  can  be  carried  around  and  dropped,  and  be  carried  safely  in  an 
51  air-tight  tin  box.  For  large  buildings,  such  as  courts,  etc.,  put  the 
phosphor  in  a  small  box  that  can  be  carried  in  the  overcoat  pocket,  fill- 
ing the  lower  part  with  tar  and  the  upper  part  with  shavings,  saturate 
with  prepared  phosphor,  and  add  potash,  nail  on  a  lid  carefully,  bore  a 
few  holes  to  let  in  the  air,  and  in  the  course  of  three  or  four  hours  an 
explosion  will  follow,  and  a  fire. 

Phosphor  may  be  used  as  a  fuse  for  dynamite,  keeping  it  from  the  air 


until  the  box  of  dynamite  is  placed  in  the  proper  position,  then  raise  the 
lid,  letting  the  air  to  the  fuse,  and  in  due  time  an  explosion  will  follow. 

PEOPLE'S   EXHIBIT  16. 

Platform  International  Association  of  Workingmen,  published  in  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung  during  February,  March  and  April,  1886. 
The  Declaration  of  Independence  declares  when  a  long  train  of  abuses 
and  usurpation,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to 
reduce  them  (the  people)  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is 
their  duty  to  throw  off  such  government  and  to  provide  new  guards  for 
their  future  security.  Are  we  not  too  much  governed,  and  is  it  not  the 
time  to  practice  this  thought  of  Jefferson?  Is  our  government  anything 
but  a  conspiracy  of  the  privileged  classes  against  the  people?  Fellow- 
laborers,  read  the  following  declaration,  which  we  issue  in  your  interest, 
for  humanity  and  progress.  The  present  order  of  society  is  based  upon 
the  spoliation  of  the  non-property  by  the  property  owners,  the  capital- 
ists buy  the  labor  of  the  poor  for  wages,  at  the  mere  cost  of  living,  taking 
all  the  surplus  of  labor.  By  machinery  constantly  reducing  the  volume 
of  human  labor,  produces  constantly  increasing  quantities  of  goods, 
whereby  the  competition  of  labor  is  increasing  and  its  price  being  re- 
duced. Thus,  while  the  poor  are  increasingly  deprived  the  opportunities 
of  advancement,  the  rich  grow  richer  through  increasing  robbery.  Only 
by  rare  and  accidental  opportunities  can  the  poor  become  rich ;  avarice 
increases  with  wealth,  and  capitalists  compete  for  the  spoliation  of  the 
masses.  In  this  struggle  the  moderately  wealthy  succumb,  while  monop- 
olists flourish,  concentrating  in  their  hands  entire  branches  of  industry, 
trade  and  commerce.  Industrial  and  commercial  crises  follow,  which 
force  the  wretchedness  of  the  non-property  owners  to  the  highest  point. 
Statistics  of  the  United  States  show  that  after  deducting  raw  material, 
interest  on  capital,  etc.,  property  owners  claim  five-eighths,  and  allow  to 
the  laborers  but  three-eighths  of  the  residue.  The  result  of  the  present 
system  is  recurring  over-production,  while  the  increasing  elimination  of 
labor  from  the  process  of  production  brings  the  impoverishment  of  an 
increasing  percentage  on  non-property  owners,  "  who  are  driven  into 
crime,  vagabondage,  prostitution,  suicide,  starvation  and  manifold  ruin. 
This  system  is  unjust,  insane  and  murderous."  Therefore  those  who 
suffer  under  it,  and  do  not  wish  to  be  responsible  for  its  continuance, 
ought  to  strive  for  its  destruction  by  all  means  and  with  their  utmost  en- 
ergy. "  In  its  place  is  to  be  put  the  true  order  of  society.  This  can  be 


('55) 

brought  about  only  when  all  instruments  of  property — all  capital  pro- 
duced by  labor — has  been  transformed  into  common  property,  for  thus 
only  is  the  possibility  of  spoliation  cut  off.  Only  by  the  impossibility  of 
accumulating  private  capital  can  every  one  be  compelled  to  work  who 
claims  the  right  to  live.  Neither  lordship  nor  servitude  will  thereafter 
exist.  This  system  would  result  further  that  no  one  would  need  to  work 
more  than  a  few  hours  a  day,  and  yet  every  reasonable  want  of  society 
would  be  satisfied."  In  this  way,  time  and  opportunity  are  also  given 
for  opening  to  all  the  people  the  possibility  of  the  highest  imaginable 
culture." 

Opposed  to  such  a  system  are  the  political  organizations  of  the  capital- 
ists, whether  monarchies  or  republics.  States  are  in  the  hands  of  prop- 
erty owners  with  no  other  apparent  end  than  to  maintain  the  disorder  of 
the  present  day.  The  laws  turn  their  sharp  points  against  the  laboring 
people,  and  so  far  as  they  seem  otherwise,  are  evaded  by  the  ruling  class. 
The  school  exists  for  the  offspring  of  the  rich,  while  the  children  of  the 
poor  receive  scarcely  an  elementary  education,  and  this  directed  to  pro- 
mote conceit,  prejudice,  servility,  anything  but  intelligence.  By  refer- 
ence to  a  fictitious  heaven,  the  church  seeks  to  make  the  masses  forget 
the  loss  of  paradise  on  earth,  while  the  press  takes  care  to  confuse  the 
public  mind.  These  institutions  aim  to  prevent  the  people  from  reaching 
intelligence,  being  under  the  sway  of  the  capitalist  class.  The  laborers 
can  look  for  aid  from  no  outside  source  in  their  fight  against  the  existing 
system,  but  must  achieve  deliverance  through  their  own  exertions. 
Hitherto,  no  privileged  class  have  relinquished  tyranny,  nor  will  the  capi- 
talists of  to-day  forego  their  privilege  and  authority  without  compulsion. 
This  is  evidenced  by  the  brutal  resistance  always  manifested  by  the  mid- 
dle classes  against  all  efforts  by  the  laboring  classes  for  their  advance- 
ment. It  is  therefore  evident  that  the  fight  must  be  of  a  revolutionary 
character;  that  wage  conflicts  cannot  lead  to  the  goal.  Every  reform 
in  favor  of  the  laboring  classes  involves  a  curtailment  of  the  privileges 
of  the  rich  to  which  we  cannot  expect  their  assent.  "  The  ruling  classes 
will  not  voluntarily  relinquish  their  prerogatives,  and  will  make  no  con- 
cession to  us.  Under  all  these  circumstances,  there  is  only  one  remedy 
left — force."  Our  ancestors  of  1776  have  taught  us  that  resistance  to 
tyrants  is  justifiable,  and  have  left  us  an  immortal  example.  By  force, 
they  freed  themselves  from  foreign  oppressors,  "  and  through  force  their 
descendants  must  free  themselves  from  domestic  oppression."  There- 
fore, it  is  your  right  and  duty  to  arm,  says  Jefferson.  Agitation  to  or- 


ganize,  organizations  for  the  purpose  of  rebellion,  this  is  the  course  if 
the  workingmen  would  rid  themselves  of  their  chains.  And,  since  all 
governments  combine  in  their  policy  of  oppression,  it  is  evident  that  the 
victory  of  the  laboring  population  can  be  confidently  expected  only  when 
the  wage-workers  along  the  whole  line  of  capitalistic  society  inaugurate 
the  decisive  combats  simultaneously.  Hence  the  necessity  for  interna- 
tional affiliation  and  the  organization  of  the  International  Association  of 
Workingmen. 
Our  platform  is  simple  and  clear: 

1.  Destruction   of    existing  class   domination,  through  inexonorable 
revolution  and  international  activity. 

2.  The   building  of   a  free   society   on  communistic   organizations  or 
production. 

3.  Free  exchange  of  equivalent  products  through  the    productive  or- 
ganization without  jobbing  and  profit  making. 

4.  Organization    of  the  educational  system   upon  non-religious    and 
scientific   and  equal  basis  for  both  sexes. 

5.  Equal  rights  for  all,  without  distinction  of  sex  or  race. 

6.  The  regulation  of  public  affairs  through  agreements  between  the 
independent  communes  and  confederacies. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  18.     From  the  Alarm  of  October  4,  1884. 

"  A  word  to  tramps."  A  word  to  the  thirty  thousand  now  tramping  the 
streets  in  enforced  idleness  without  enough  to  purchase  food.  A  word  with 
you  and  the  hundreds  of  thousands  situated  like  you.  You  have  worked 
hard,  toiled  long  in  producing  wealth,  and  through  your  years  of  drudg- 
ery have  produced  much  which  you  have  no  part  in.  While  laboring 
with  machinery  during  your  hours  of  service,  you  received  of  the  results 
produced  only  enough  for  your  bare  subsistence.  For  rest  you  had  to 
wait  till  Sunday;  while  with  all  economy  you  are  able  to  accumulate 
scarcely.any  thing;  and  at  the  caprice  of  your  employer,  you  have  at 
times  been  turned  upon  the  highway  by  a  lockout,  hungry  arid  in  rags. 
No  one  cared  for  your  tears  or  heartaches  as  you  turned  from  your 
family  and  tramped  the  road  in  search  of  employment,  and  to  be  de- 
nounced as  a  vagrant.  "Can  you  not  see  that  it  is  the  industrial  system, 
and  not  the  boss,  which  must  be  changed?"  When  following  a  summer 
and  autumn  without  employment  and  without  savings,  the  winter  comes 
upon  you,  do  not  listen  to  the  hypocrite  who  says  it  is  ordained  of  God, 
that  the  poor  ye  have  always;  or  to  the  robber  who  will  say,  you  drank 


your  wages,  and  who  will  drive  you  from  them,  and  shoot  you  if  you 
are  persistent  in  your  petition.  But  listen,  when  next  winter  you  surfer 
with  cold,  with  insufficient  clothing,  with  hunger  and  all  wretchedness 
centered  upon  you — and  life  a  burden  and  a  mockery  and  you  face 
suicide  and  are  ready  to  seek  the  embrace  of  the  lake,  rather  than  suffer, 
halt!  Can  you  do  nothing  to  insure  those  whom  you  are  about  to  orphan 
against  alike  fate?  The  waves  will  mock  your  act;  but  stroll  down  the 
avenues,  look  in  the  voluptuous  homes  and  discover  there  the  robbers 
who  have  despoiled  you.  Here  let  your  tragedy  be  enacted  and  send 
forth  your  petition  that  will  never  be  heeded  except  when  read  in  the 
glare  of  conflagration,  or  when  handed  to  your  oppressors  upon  the 
point  of  the  sword.  You  need  no  organization — that  would  be  a  detri- 
ment, but  avail  yourselves  of  the  methods  of  warfare  which  science  has 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  poor.  Learn  the  use  of  explosives.  "Dedi- 
cated to  the  tramps  by  Lucy  E.  Parsons." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  19.     The  Alarm,  November  i,  1884. 

This  exhibit  is  the  international  workingmen's  proclamation  and 
declaration  of  principles,  substantially  the  same  as  the  translation  there- 
of published  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  and  before  extracted,  but  closes  as 
follows: 

Whoever  agrees  with  this  idea,  let  him  grasp  our  outstretched 
brother  hands. 

Proletarians  of  all  countries,  unite. 

Fellow  workmen,  all  we  need  for  the  achievement  of  this  great  end  is 
organization  and  unity. 

There  exists  now  no  great  obstacle  to  that  unify.  The  work  of  peace- 
ful education  and  revolutionary  conspiracy  will,  can  and  ought  to  run  in 
parallel  lines. 

The  day  has  come  for  solidarity.  Join  our  ranks!  Let  the  drum  beat 
defiantly  the  roll  of  battle;  workingmen  of  all  lands,  unite!  You  have 
nothing  to  lose  but  your  chains;  you  have  a  world  to  win.  Tremble, 
oppressors  of  the  world!  Not  far  beyond  your  purblind  slight  there 
dawns  the  scarlet  and  sable  lights  of  the  judgment  day! 

Issued  by  the  Pittsburgh  Congress  of  International  Workingpeople's 
Association  on  October  16,  1883. 

Published  by  the  bureau  of  information. 


PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  20.     Alarm,  October  n,  1884. 

"  Take  care."  At  a  meeting  of  the  international,  No.  54  West  Lake 
street,  last  week,  J.  P.  Uucey  said  the  unemployed  should  attack  the 
lives  and  property  of  those  who  have  robbed  them  and  then  turned  them 
adrift  to  starve.  The  Daily  News,  grown  rich  on  working  people's 
pennies,  says  of  Mr.  Ducey  he  should  be  nipped  in  the  bud  of  his  mis- 
chief making.  If  he  don't  like  the  way  this  country  is  run,  the  authori- 
ties should  transport  him  to  some  land  "  where  such  creatures  are  given 
their  deserts  at  the  end  of  a  rope."  The  Daily  News  man  fears  an  at- 
tack upon  the  principle  that  "  the  thief  doth  take  each  bush  to  be  an 
officer."  Some  fine  day  every  wage-worker  will  become  a  communist 
and  the  Daily  News  representative  of  capitalistic  robbers  will  dangle  in- 
stead of  Ducey.  Have  patience  and  your  curses  will  come  home  to 
roost. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  21.    'The  Alarm  of  October  18,  1884. 

"  The  Anarchist."  The  Daily  Inter  Ocean  closes  a  lengthy  article 
thus:  There  are  anarchists  in  America,  Germany,  France  and  England 
whose  rabies  are  like  those  of  the  Russian  nihilist;  in  India  it  is  thugism. 
There  is  nothing  republican  or  socialistic  in  it — socialism  proposing  to 
make  the  powers  of  the  state  all  comprehensive.  It  is  announced  that 
the  parliamentary  buildings  at  Quebec  have  been  blown  up  by  dynamite. 
This  is  anarchic  nihilism.  The  Cleveland  fires  perhaps  the  same. 
Anarchists  will  discover  that  an  American  militia  is  more  prompt  and 
merciless  than  an  imperial  army,  and  the  American  people  will  be  more 
condign  and  vengeful  against  anarchism.  If  the  public  become  certain 
that  anarchism  means  malicious  and  deadly  force,  anarchists  will  find 
Russian  despotism  less  effective  for  their  suppression  than  American  law. 

The  Inter-Ocean  man  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  one  man  with  a  dyn- 
amite bomb  is  equal  to  a  regiment  of  militia.  The  method  of  warfare 
has  been  revolutionized  by  the  discoveries  of  modern  science,  and  will 
use  explosives  in  the  coming  conflict. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  22.    The  Alarm,  October  25,  1884. 

Miners  in  Ohio  are  organizing  companies  of  sharpshooters,  proposing 
to  try  force.  "  The  necessity  which  has  heretofore  compelled  them  to 
submit  to  the  employers'  terms  they  now  intend  to  get  rid  of  by  removing 
those  who  created  that  necessity." 


('59) 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  23.     The  Alarm,  October  25,  1884. 

"  The  Socialists."  Socialists  are  falsely  accused  of  being  blood- 
thirsty. Once  competition  ground  down  so  slowly  as  to  be  unnoticed, 
but  now,  with  free  schools,  free  press,  etc.,  its  course  is  observed,  and 
when  anything  is  moving  against  the  rights  of  the  majority,  it  will  be 
stopped.  Whether  bloodshed  will  be  required  depends  upon  how  old 
the  principle  is,  and  how  interested  its  supporters  are  in  keeping  it  up; 
and  second,  upon  the  determination  of  the  opposition.  An  opposition 
known  to  be  sufficiently  strong  for  certain  victory  will  command  and  ob- 
tain a  bloodless  surrender.  This  is  why  the  anarchist  urges  scientific 
study  and  the  construction  of  explosives,  to  make  themselves  too  strong 
to  be  opposed  with  deadly  weapons,  which  alone  can  insure  against  blood- 
shed. Bloodshed  being  useless  and  injustice  defenceless,  people  can  be 
forced  to  deal  justly  and  generously  with  each  other.  The  ridiculous 
situation  that  requires  men  to  freeze  because  there  is  too  much  coal, 
starve  because  there  is  too  much  bread,  go  naked  because  there  is  too 
much  clothing,  and  lie  out-doors  because  there  are  too  many  houses,  can- 
not continue,  especially  when  that  evil,  is  known  to  be  increasing.  The 
only  remedy  is  make  common  property  and  let  all  partake  of  the  earn- 
ings; allow  none  to  hoard  or  carry  off. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  24.     The  Alarm,  November  i,  1885. 

"  The  Useless  Classes."  Who  does  no  good  to  humanity  is  useless. 
There  is  a  vast  amount  of  useless  work  going  on,  by  reason  of  which  the 
workers  have  lost  sight  of  the  pleasure  of  work.  The  selfish,  infernal 
scheme,  called  "  the  right  of  property,"  has  created  useless  work  and 
useless  workers — the  capitalists  and  their  allies,  including  jailers  and  po- 
lice, bankers,  brokers,  judges,  peddlers,  etc.,  and  the  end  of  the  right  of 
property  is  to  constitute  a  class  of  paupers,  thieves,  vagabonds,  hypo- 
crites, etc.  Destroy  the  right  of  property  and  you  set  these  useless 
workers  at  useful  work,  thereby  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  of  the  pres- 
ent laborers,  and  doing  away  with  poverty  and  filth. 

This  can  be  done  by  making  ourselves  masters  of  the  use  of  dynamite, 
then  declaring  against  private  ownership  and  punishing  its  assertion.  Let 
us  not  strike  when  our  numbers  are  too  small,  and  to  avoid  unnecessary 
bloodshed,  etc.,  we  must  strike  together  and  know  our  purpose  and  be 
prepared.  "  Our  war  is  not  against  men,  but  against  systems."  We  can 
expect  few  converts  among  the  rich,  and  it  will  be  better  for  our  cause 
if  they  strike  first. 


PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  25.      The  Alarm,  November  i,  1884. 

Socialists  are  accused  of  advocating  the  destruction  of  property.  Their 
plan  is  to  make  property  common,  to  supply  all  needs,  but  prevent  de- 
struction or  waste,  only  destroying  to  prevent  recapture. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  26.     The  Alarm,  November  i,  1884. 

•  "Anarchism."  "  The  anarchist  believes  in  peace,  but  not  at  the  expense 
of  liberty.  He  believes  that  political  laws  are  enacted  to  force  men  to  do 
those  things  they  would  not  naturally  or  if  left  untrammeled.  Therefore 
he  considers  all  political  laws  as  violations  of  the  laws  of  nature  and  the 
rights  of  man.  He  believes  if  each  man  held  all  laws  within  himself,  he 
would  be  held  to  a  just  execution  of  them  by  every  other  man.  There- 
fore, that  he  can  only  hope  for  justice  and  liberty  through  the  abolition 
of  statutes  and  governments.  He  has  no  faith  in  the  laws  of  man;  but 
all  faith  in  the  laws  of  nature. 

"He  believes  that,  under  any  government,  the  more  a  man  is  governed 
the  less  he  is  free.  Therefore,  as  the  least  government  the  better,  none 
at  all  is  best — that  all  governments  become  despotisms;  that  evil  in  man 
results  from  the  violation  of  natural  right,  and  that  most  laws  are  in- 
tended to  advantage  one  class  at  the  expense  of  another.  He  therefore 
demands  the  abolition  of  all  political  laws  and  the  restoration  of  the  rights 
of  man  as  nature  has  provided." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  27.     The  Alarm,  November  15,  1885. 

"  The  Butchers  of  Men."  What  Gen.  Phil/Sheridan  says  in  his 
annual  report  upon  the  subject  of  capital  and  labor. 

November  loth  last,  Gen.  Phil  Sheridan  in  his  annual  report  says  that 
latterly  much  attention  has  been  given  to  rifle  practice,  developing  great 
skill  in  long-distance  shooting.  Approves  the  state  militia,  and  thinks  Con- 
gress ought  to  determine  the  number  of  troops  in  each  state  and  provide 
arms, equipage, etc.  'Urges  sea  coast  fortification,  and  then  says:  There  are 
other  signs  of  trouble.  Destructive  explosives  are  easily  made,  and  that 
large  buildings  can  be  easily  demolished  and  commerce  destroyed  by  an 
infuriated  people,  with  means  carried  safely  in  their  pocket.  Militarism 
is  capitalism  embodied  in  force,  and  the  instruments  of  tyrants — its  only 
occupation  "  to  protect  the  sacred  rights  of  property."  The  right  of 
property  enslaves,  plunders  and  destroys  the  propertyless  class.  "  Dy- 
namite is  the  emancipator.  In  the  hands  of  the  enslaved  it  cries  aloud, 
justice  or  annihilation."  The  workingmen  will  use  it  until  "  property 


rights  are  destroyed  and  a    free  society  and  justice   becomes    the  rule 
of  government  among  men.  " 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  28.     The  Alarm,  November  22,  1884. 

"  This  paper."  This  paper  is  owned  by  the  International  Working- 
people's  Association;  published  by  the  working  people  for  the  public 
good.  We  ask  a  little  from  those  interested  to  increase  its  circulation 
and  its  size. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  29.     The  Alarm,  November  28,  1884. 

"  The  Black  Flag."  The  emblem  of  hunger  unfolded  by  the  porletari- 
ans  of  Chicago.  The  red  flag,  borne  aloft  by  thousands  of  workingmen 
on  Thanksgiving  day.  The  poverty  of  the  poor  is  created  by  the  rob- 
bery of  the  rich.  Speeches,  resolutions  and  a  grand  demonstration  of  the 
unemployed,  the  tramps  and  miserables  of  the  city.  Significant  incidents. 
Shortly  before  Thanksgiving  day  some  of  the  working  people,  after  con- 
sultation, issued  the  following  circular  to  wage-workers  and  tramps:  The 
governor  has  ordained  next  Thursday  for  Thanksgiving.  You  are  to 
give  thanks  because  your  masters  refuse  you  employment;  because  you 
are  hungry  and  without  home  or  shelter,  and  your  masters  have  taken 
away  what  you  have  created  and  arranged  to  shoot  you  by  the  police  or 
militia  if  you  refuse  to  die  in  your  hovel,  in  due  observation  of  "  L,aw 
and  Order."  You  must  give  thanks  that  you  face  the  blizzards  without 
an  overcoat;  .without  fit  shoes  and  clothes,  while  abundant  clothing  made 
by  you  spoils  in  the  storehouses;  that  you  suffer  hunger  while  millions 
of  bushels  of  grain  rot  in  the  elevators;  for  this  purpose  a  thanksgiving 
meeting  will  be  held  on  Market  square  at  2:30  o'clock,  to  be  followed  by 
a  demonstration  to  express  our  thanks  to  our  "  Christian  brothers  on 
Michigan  avenue."  Every  one  that  feels  the  mockery  of  this  Thanks- 
giving order  should  be  present.  Signed,  the  Committee  of  the  Grateful 
Workingpeople's  International  Association. 

Thursday  opened  with  sleet  and  rain,  cold  and  miserable.  At  2:30 
over  three  thousand  people  assembled  on  Market  street,  under  the  unpity- 
ing  rain  and  sleet.  A  stranger  said,  "  What  you  want  is  guns; you  don't 
want  to  be  heard  talking."  He  was  stopped  for  the  regular  arrange- 
ments. The  meeting  being  called  to  order,  A.  R.  Parsons  said:  "  We 
assemble  as  representatives  of  the  disinherited,  to  speak  in  the  name  of 
forty  thousand  unemployed  workingmen  of  Chicago,  two  millions  in  the 
United  States  and  fifteen  millions  in  the  civilized  world."  He  compared 


(  '62  ) 

the  Thanksgiving  feast  to  that  of  Belshazzar,  and  said  the  champagne 
wrung  from  the  blood  of  the  poor  ought  to  strangle  the  rich.  He  then 
read  as  follows:  "  St.  James,  chapter  5,  says,  '  Go  to  now,  ye  rich  men, 
weep  and  howl  for  your  miseries  which  are  to  come  upon  you.  Your 
riches  are  corrupted,  and  your  garments  are  moth-eaten.  Your  gold  and 
silver  is  cankered;  and  the  rust  of  them  shall  be  a  witness  against  you, 
and  shall  eat  your  flesh  as  it  were  fire.  Ye  have  heaped  treasures  to- 
gether for  the  last  days.  Behold  the  hire  of  the  laborers  who  have 
reaped  down  your  fields,  which  ye  have  kept  back  by  fraud,  crieth:  Woe 
to  them  that  bring  about  iniquity  by  law.'  The  prophet  Habakkuk  says: 
'  Woe  to  him  that  buildeth  a  town  by  blood,  and  establisheth  a  city  by  in- 
iquity.' The  prophet  Amos  says:  'Hear  this,  O  ye  that  swallow  up 
the  needy,  even  to  make  the  poor  to  fail  from  the  land,  that  I  may  buy 
the  poor  for  silver,  and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of  shoes.'  The  prophet 
Isaiah  says:  '  Woe  unto  them  that  chain  house  to  house,  and  lay  field  to 
field,  till  there  is  no  place,  that  they  may  be  alone  in  the  midst  of  the 
earth.'  Solomon  says:  'There  is  a  generation  that  are  pure  in  their  own 
eves,  and  yet  is  not  washed  of  their  filthiness;  a  generation,  Oh,  how  lifted 
are  their  eyes,  and  how  their  eyelids  are  lifted  up:  A  generation  whose 
teeth  are  as  swords,  and  their  jaw  teeth  as  knives,  to  devour  the  poor 
from  off  the  earth,  and  the  needy  from  among  men.' ' 

And  concluding,  he  said:  We  did  not  intend  to  wait  for  a  future  exist- 
ence, but  to  do  something  for  ourselves  in  this. 

He  introduced  S.  S.  Griffin,  who  said  this  was  an  international 
assembly  in  the  interests  of  humanity,  having  no  quarrel  with  each  other 
and  objecting  to  being  set  at  work  by  governmental  scheme.  Don't 
believe  that  any  government  or  system  should  be  allowed  to  pit  man 
against  man,  for  any  cause;  and  to  get  at  the  root  of  these  evils,  we 
must  go  to  the  foundation  of  property  rights  and  the  wage  system.  The 
old  system  could  not  meet  the  demands  of  our  present  civilization.  The 
present  cry  is  against  over-production,  because  it  operates  against  hu- 
manity. Over-production,  glutting  the  market,  causes  a  lockout,  de- 
priving the  wage  class  of  the  means  of  purchasing.  Vacant  houses  stop 
the  building  industry,  and  results  in  throwing  builders  out  of  employ- 
ment; ragged  because  of  a  surplus  of  clothing;  homeless  because  of  too 
many  houses;  hungry  because  there  is  too  much  bread;  freezing  because 
too  much  coal  is  produced.  The  system  must  be  changed.  Man  can 
wear  but  one  suit  of  clothes  at  a  time  and  can  consume  only  about  so 
much.  The  genius  of  our  age  is  inventing  and  increasing  the  productive 


('63) 

/ 

power.  A  system  that  in  effect  tells  the  working  classes  that  the  more 
they  produce  the  less  they  will  have  to  enjoy  is  a  check  on  human 
progress  and  cannot  continue.  Everything  must  be  made  free.  No 
man  should  control  what  he  has  no  personal  use  for. 

Upon  Mr.  Parsons'  call  the  resolutions  were  read  as  follows: 

WHEREAS,  We  have  outlived  wage  and  property  system;  and  whereas, 
the  right  of  property  requires  more  effort  to  adjust  it  between  man  and 
man  than  to  produce  and  distribute  it, 

Resolved,  That  property  rights  should  no  longer  be  maintained  or 
respected,  and  that  all  useless  workers  should  be  deprived  of  useless  em- 
ployment and  required  to  engage  in  productive  industry;  and  as  this  is 
impossible  under  the  payment  system, 

Resolved,  That  no  man  shall  pay  for  anything,  or  receive  pay  for  any- 
thing, or  deprive  himself  of  what  he  may  desire,  that  he  finds  out  of  use 
or  vacant. 

Resolved,  That  whoever  refuses  to  devote  a  reasonable  amount  of 
energy  to  the  production  or  distribution  of  necessaries  is  the  enemy  of 
mankind  and  ought  to  be  so  treated;  and  so  of  the  willful  waster. 

As  this  system  cannot  be  introduced  as  against  existing  ignorance  and 
selfishness  without  force,  Resolved  that  when,  introduced,  the  good  of 
mankind  and  the  saving  of  blood  requires  that  forcible  opposition  shall 
be  dealt  with  summarily;  but  that  no  one  should  be  harmed  for  holding 
opposite  opinions. 

Resolved  that  our  policy  is  wise,  humane  and  practical  and  ought  to 
be  enforced  at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 

As  an  expression  of  thankfulness,  Resolved  that  we  are  thankful  we 
have  learned  the  true  cause  of  poverty  and  the  remedies,  and  can  only 
be  more  thankful  when  the  remedy  is  applied. 

The  next  speaker  was  Samuel  Fielden.  He  denounced  the  hypocrisy 
of  calling  upon  people  to  thank  God  for  prosperity,  while  providing  no 
changes  for  the  better,  when  so  many  were  in  actual  want  in  the  midst 
of  abundance.  That  when  he  was  a  boy,  his  mother  taught  him  to  say, 
"  Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven;"  but  so  far  as  he  knew  God  had  re- 
mained there  and  would  not  come  here  until  things  were  better  arranged. 
Our  motto  is,  Liberty,  Equality  and  Fraternity,  embracing  all  men. 
Our  international  movement  is  to  unite  all  countries  and  to  do  away  with 
the  robber  class. 

August  Spies  spoke.  Pointing  to  the  black  flag,  he  said  it  was  the 
first  time  the  emblem  of  hunger  and  starvation  had  been  unfurled  on 


(i64) 

American  soil.     He  said  we  had  got   to  strike  down  these  robbers  who 
were  robbing  the  working  people. 

In  answer  to  a  call  from  the  Germans,  Mr.  Schwab  spoke  in  German 
a  few  minutes.  A  stranger  said,  "  Get  your  guns  out  and  go  for  them. 
That  is  all  I  have  got  to  say."  Three  cheers  were  given  for  the  social 
revolution.  The  audience  then  formed  a  procession  three  thousand 
strong  and  marched  headed  by  the  band  playing  the  Marsellaise,  carry- 
ing two  large  flags,  one  black  and  the  other  red,  and  about  midway  of 
the  procession  two  more.  Various  transparencies  were  borne  along. 
Among  them:  "  Workmen,  organize.  Liberty  without  equality  is  a  lie." 
"  Private  capital  is  the  reward  of  robbery."  "  All  workmen  have  iden- 
tical interests."  "  Privilege  is  injustice."  "  No  greater  crime  in  our 
day  than  poverty."  "  Down  with  wage  slavery,"  etc.  When  the  pro- 
cession reached  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  building,  Mr.  Parsons  spoke  from 
the  window,  congratulating  the  crowd  upon  the  success  of  the  demon- 
stration, introduced  Fielden,  who  made  a  brief  and  eloquent  speech  and 
said  they  had  given  fair  warning.  He  urged  them  to  organize  and  pre- 
pare for  the  inevitable  conflict  which  the  capitalistic  class  would  force 
upon  them.  He  said  that  "  All  nationalities  and  creeds  were  swallowed 
up  in  the  international,  which  made  of  all  mankind  a  band  of  brothers, 
and  by  securing  justice  to  each,  would  bring,  peace,  prosperity  and  hap- 
piness to  all." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  30.     The  Alarm,  November  29, 1884. 

"  The  Property  Power."  So  long  as  property  is  protected  by  law,  each 
person  will  use  his  accumulations  as  a  weapon  against  the  unfortunate.  The 
property  power  is  a  lever  that  meanness  alone  can  acquire,  inhumanity 
alone  will  use.  "  If  we  would  but  stop  to  think  of  the  real  depravity  of 
the  crime  of  withholding  from  the  hardworking  needy,  and  especially 
from  their  little  ones,  we  would  thoroughly  damn  ourselves  for  allowing 
it  to  continue."  The  deprivation  of  the  poor  is  for  the  aggrandizement 
of  the  rich.  If  there  was  a  shadow  of  truth  in  the  statement  that  the 
freely  giving  of  food,  shelter  and  clothing  to  all  would,  in  the  least,  take 
away  the  present  comforts  of  robbers  of  the  so-called  upper  class,  then 
people  could  more  patiently  tolerate  the  present  wickedness. 

When  the  people  wake  up  to  the  enormity  of  the  crime  of  property 
holding  and  propert}-  manipulating,  then  dynamite  will  not  be  too  power- 
ful or  too  quick  to  express  their  hatred  for  those  who  uphold  it.  There 
's  no  just  reason  why  three-fourths  of  the  world's  energy  should  be 


wasted  in  stealing,  guarding  and  manipulating  the  comforts  and  neces- 
saries of  life.  It  is  no  credit  to  a  men  that  he  spends  his  energies — he 
does  it  because  he  has  to,  is  so  created  and  cannot  help  it;  and  not  to  do 
so  would  be  pain;  therefore,  no  man  should  be  paid  for  what  he  pro- 
duces, and,  in  justice  to  humanity,  he  who  will  not  produce  should  be 
killed.  Down  with  this  infernal  nonsense  that  we  must  surely  live  by 
money!  We  have  no  just  use  for  money,  or  banks,  brokers  or  insurers, 
jailers,  or  any  other  hoodlum  class  who  are  wickedly  wasting  the 
energy  of  their  lives.  No  rascality  or  stupidity  is  sacred  because  it  is 
old. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  31.     The  Alarm,  December  6,  1884. 

"  Dynamite,  the  protection  of  the  poor  against  the  armies  of  the  rich." 
The  article  again  quotes  from  Gen.  Sheridan's  report  of  November 
10,.  1884,  as  to  the  ease  of  constructing  and  carrying  explosives,  and 
further  says,  a  hint  to  the  wise  is  sufficient.  One  dynamite  bomb  prop- 
erly placed  will  destroy  a  regiment  of  soldiers.  Their  First  regiment 
may  as  well  disband,  for  if  it  should  ever  level  its  guns  upon  the  work- 
men of  Chicago,  it  can  be  annihilated. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  32.     Translation  of  "  Anarchist." 

Motto:  All  government  we  hate.  Organ  of  the  autonomous  group 
of  the  I.  A.  A.  Volume  i.  Chicago,  January  i,  1886.  No.  i.  Com- 
plaints should  be  sent  to  G.  Engel,  286  Milwaukee  avenue.  Call. 
Workingmen  and  fellows:  We  recognize  it  our  duty  to  contend  against 
existing  rule,  but  he  who  would  war  successfully  must  equip  himself 
with  all  implements  adapted  to  destroy  his  opponents  and  secure  victory. 
In  consideration  thereof  we  have  resolved  to  publish  the  Anarchist,  as  a 
line  in  the  fight  for  the  disinherited.  It  is  necessary  to  disseminate  an- 
archistic doctrine.  As  we  strive  for  freedom  from  government  we 
advocate  the  principle  of  autonomy,  in  this  sense:  We  strive  towards  the 
overthrow  of  the  existing  order,  that  an  end  may  be  put  to  the  "abhor- 
rent work  of  destruction  on  the  part  of  mankind,  and  fratricide  may  be 
done  away."  The  equality  of  all,  without  distinction  of  race,  color  or 
nationality,  is  our  fundamental  principle,  thus  ending  rule  and  servitude. 
We  reject  reformatory  endeavors  as  useless  play,  adding  to  the  miserable 
derision  and  oppression  of  the  workingmen.  Against  the  never-to-be- 
satisfied  ferocity  of  the  capital  we  recommend  the  radical  means  of  the 
present  age.  All  endeavors  of  the  working  classes  not  aiming  at  the 
overthrow  of  existing  conditions  of  ownership  and  at  complete  self-gov- 


(i66) 

ernment  are  to  us  reactionary.  The  idea  of  the  absence  of  authority 
warrants  that  we  will  always  carry  on  a  fight  of  principles  only. 

Motto,  second  page:     "  For  liberty  we  strive." 

Third  page.  Conclusion  of  German  prospectus,  "  Liberty,  equality 
and  brotherhood  can  only  be  established  by  anarchy."  Signed  "  F'g," 
showing  who  the  writer  is. 

On  the  third  page,  "  For  equality  we  fight.  New  Year's  Greeting." 
The  poem  is  one  of  eight  verses,  of  eight  lines  each,  presenting  the  in- 
equalities between  poverty  and  wealth,  and  calling  upon  the  working- 
men  to  gird  them  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  world. 

On  the  third  page  of  the  same  paper  is  the  following:  "The  right  to 
live."  No  one  can  deny  that  man  brings  with  him  into  the  world  the 
right  to  live.  But  this  is  denied  him  by  the  property  beast.  He  who 
has  the  whip  of  power  will  brandish  it  over  the  poor.  What  does  the 
world  offer  to  the  poor  who  are  compelled  to  carry  on  a  mere  struggle 
for  existence?  Patented  machinery,  combined  with  capital  and  other 
means  of  preservation,  denies  work  to  the  workmen  on  account  of  the 
excessive  offer  of  working  powers.  Workingmen  should  therefore  enter 
the  ranks  of  those  who  propose  to  set  aside  the  present  system  of  in- 
equality and  build  up  a  system  of  equality  and  freedom.  Let  every  one 
join  the  International  Workingmen's  Association,  and  arm  himself  with 
the  best  weapons  of  modern  tfmes. 

Page  3  of  the  same  paper:  "  Beginnings  of  a  reaction  in  America." 
The  authorities  in  America  have  hitherto  refused  to  prosecute  anarchists 
as  the  European  powers  do,  not  because  of  hatred  to  despotism,  but 
from  fear  that  the  American  people  might  be  driven  into  anarchism.  As 
anarchists  increase,  however,  it  is  intended  to  do  away  with  them  by 
slow  degrees.  To  this  end  a  bill  was  introduced  in  Congress  refusing 
to  and  revoking  citizenship  of  such.  Yet  the  anarchist  declines  citizen- 
ship because  he  regards  himself  as  cosmopolitan.  We  hope  for  more 
foolish  things  to  open  the  eyes  of  American  vvorkingmen. 

From  page  4  of  the  same  paper:  "  Reflections  of  an  anarchist  at  the 
grave  of  Leiske-"  After  the  workingman  becomes  a  journeyman  he 
feels  free,  casts  a  glance  into  the  world — it  is  glorious,  beautiful.  He 
thinks  there  is  happiness  for  him  somewhere.  He  proposes  logo  abroad, 
but  a  terrible  cry  falls  upon  his  ears,  the  outcry  of  a  tormented  people. 
He  inquires,  have  the  pariahs  of  to-day  a  right  to  live?  and  answers  yes. 
Why  otherwise  born  if  suffered  to  die  with  hunger?  And  hunger  and 
poverty  are  the  results  of  the  stealings  of  the  rich.  Having  thus  con- 


eluded,  he  swears  to  help  in  the  work  of  liberation,  "  In  the  great  struggle 
of  mankind  for  a  better  condition";  to  take  vengeance  upon  those  re- 
sponsible for  this  misery.  In  his  investigations  he  learns  the  utter  vile- 
ness  of  the  police  power,  and  a  policeman  is  killed.  Whereupon  the 
workman  is  arrested,  charged  with  the  murder  of  Rumpf  and  killed  after 
nearly  a  year  of  most  devilish  torture.  With  what  contempt  Leiske 
met  his  executioners  and  with  what  heroism  he  went  unto  his  death  is 
known  to  our  fellows,  and  he  shall  be  avenged.  Signed,  Sen  -  -  k. 

Motto  on  fourth  page:  "Thus  we  conquer  or  die."  Meetings  ad- 
vertised: The  south-west  side  group  at  6n  Throop  street,  every  Satur- 
day evening;  the  north-west  side  group  every  Thursday  evening  at  636 
Milwaukee  avenue;  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  third  company  in  Work- 
ingmen's  Hall,  West  i2th  street,  every  Thursday  evening,  and  the 
school  of  discussion  of  the  anarchists  at  713  West  2Oth  street,  every 
Monday  evening. 

Below  that,  anarchistic  periodicals  advertised: 

Freiheit,  John  Mueller,  167  William  street,  New  York;  the  Alarm, 
107  5th  avenue;  Parole,  112^  South  7th  street,  St.  Louis;  Budocnost, 
396  West  iSth  street;  Anarchist,  585  Center  avenue,  Chicago;  Arbeiter 
Zeitung,  Flackel,  Verbote,  107  5th  avenue;  Proleter,  550  i6th  street, 
New  York. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  33.     The  Alarm,  December  13,  1884. 

"  The  seat  of  war."  The  industrial  war  between  the  rich  and  poor  is 
daily  broadening  and  intensifying.  During  the  past  week  government 
has  resorted  to  military  force  on  four  occasions:  At  Des  Moines,  to 
suppress  the  workingmen  on  a  strike;  at  Norwalk,  Conn.,  Straitsville, 
Ohio,  and  Port  Huron,  Ontario,  same.  The  property  class  always  fall 
back  on  force.  To  arms,  fellowmen! 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  34.     The  Alarm,  January  13,  1885: 

"  Force  the  only  defense  against  injustice  and  oppression ."  Because  the 
socialists  advocate  resistance,  they  are  accused  of  brutality  and  want  of  wis- 
dom. All  men  agree  that  themselves  should  not  be  trampled  upon  by  others. 
If  you  can  compel  a  man  to  agree  to  allow  others  to  exercise  control  over 
him,  you  will  find  that  the  soldier  will  soon  claim  all  you  have  acquired 
for  yourselves.  This  only  teaches  that  it  is  dangerous  for  the  wicked  to 
teach  war;  not  so  with  justice.  Justice  can  never  create  opposition  to  itself. 
Therefore  "justice  is  always  safe  in  accumulating  force,  while  injustice 


(  '68) 

can  only  accumulate  force  at  its  peril."  We  are  told  force  is  cruel,  but 
this  is  only  true  when  the  opposition  is  less  cruel.  If  the  opposition  is 
relentless  power,  starving,  freezing,  etc.,  and  the  application  of  force  will 
require  less  suffering,  then  force  is  humane.  Therefore  we  say  that 
dynamite  is  both  humane  and  economical.  It  will,  at  the  expense  of  less 
suffering,  prevent  more.  It  is  not  humane  to  compel  ten  persons  to  starve 
to  death,  when  the  execution  of  five  persons  would  prevent  it.  "  A  system 
that  is  starving  and  freezing  tens  of  thousands  of  little  children,  in  the 
midst  of  a  world  of  plenty,  cannot  be  defended  against  dynamiters  on 
the  ground  of  humanity."  "  If  every  child  that  starved  to  death  in  the 
United  States  was  retaliated  for  by  the  execution  of  a  rich  man  in  his 
own  parlor,  the  brutal  system  of  wage  property  would  not  last  six 
weeks."  "  It  is  a  wonder  that  a  father,  after  his  vain  search  for  bread, 
see  his  little  ones  starve  or  freeze,  without  striking  that  vengeful,  just 
and  bloody  blow  at  the  cause  that  would  prevent  other  little  ones  suffer- 
ing a  similar  fate.  It  is  not  probable  that  men  will  always  endure  this 
cruel,  relentless  process  of  monopoly  and  competition." 

"  The  privileged  class  use  force  to  perpetuate  their  power,  and  the 
despoiled  workers  must  use  force  to  prevent  it."  Signed  C.  S.  G. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  35.     The  Alarm,  Jannuary  24,  1885. 

"  Wage  workers."  Michael  Schwab  spoke  in  German,  that  the  gap 
between  the  rich  and  the  poor  was  growing  wider,  therefore  socialism 
had  arisen.  The  poor  had  to  labor  too  long  to  properly  educate  himself. 
He  spoke  of  Reinsdorff  as  a  martyr  to  the  cause,  whose  death  was 
avenged  by  the  killing  of  Rumpf. 

"  It  was  no  wonder  that  socialism  should  prosper,  when  people  learned 
how  cruel  capital  was."  That  murder  was  forced  on  manv  through 
misery  and  want,  produced  by  the  tyranny  of  capital.  That  freedom  in 
this  country  was  unknown,  both  political  parties  being  corrupt,  and  that 
what  was  needed  was  a  bloody  revolution  which  would  right  their 
wrongs. 

August  Spies  spoke  in  German  and  advised  immediate  revolt.  Wage 
slaver}'  could  only  be  abolished  through  powder  and  ball.  No  reform 
could  be  secured  through  the  medium  of  the  ballot,  which  was  a  mere 
game  of  cards,  in  which  a  cold  deck  was  wrung  in  on  the  innocent  voter 
by  the  capitalistic  class.  The  ballot  was  a  humbug  and  a  fraud  so  far  as 
accomplishing  reform  for  the  workingman  was  concerned.  He  alluded 
to  the  tyranny  of  capital  as  shown  in  the  Hocking  Valley  and  at  South 


(:69) 

Bend,  where  they  charged  that  men  were  robbed  and  compelled  to  starve 
en  masse,  and  when  they  demurred,  were  shot  down  like  dogs.  They 
should  bring  about  the  reform  by  force.  They  should  inform  themselves 
and  bring  about  emancipation  of  the  wage  slaves. 

Spies  offered  a  resolution,  which  was  adopted,  applauding  the  slaying 
of  Rumpf  as  a  spy. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  36.     The  Alarm,  February  7,  1885. 

"  Notice."  Hereafter  articles  in  the  Alarm  will  be  signed  by  the  ini- 
tials of  the  author. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  37.     The  Alarm,  February  7,  1885. 

"  The  war  cry."  A  poem  of  five  verses,  signed  Gorsuch.  Describes 
briefly  the  contest  between  wage-workers  and  capital  and  speaks  of 
dynamite  as  a  delivering  power. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  38.     The  Alarm,  February  21,  1885. 

"  The  dynamite  terror."  There  is  first  quoted  a  passage  from  Swin- 
ton's  paper,  claiming  that  the  ballot  furnishes  the  remedy  for  all  political 
evils  in  this  country;  then  expresses  surprise  at  the  idea,  and  proceeds: 
"  America  is  not  a  free  country.  A  wage  slave  is  a  slave  everywhere. 
How  can  the  industrially  enslaved  be  politically  free?  Only  the  hand 
which  holds  the  bread  can  wield  the  ballot.  Political  changes  do  not 
bring  deliverance  to  the  wage  slaves  nor  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the 
office-holders.  The  poor  have  no  votes;  wealth  alone  can  vote.  The 
poor  are  deprived  of  the  means  of  existence,  opportunity  to  acquire 
knowledge  and  culture  and  refinement;  and  for  the  perpetuation  of  these 
evils  they  have  to  thank  the  government,  the  ballot-box  and  the  politi- 
cians, and  these  are  the  results  of  the  wage-slavery  system."  "The 
deep-rooted,  malignant  evil  which  compels  the  wealth-producers  to  be- 
come the  defendant  hirelings  of  a  few  capitalistic  czars,  cannot  be  reached 
by  means  of  the  ballot."  Slaves  can  only  revolt.  Here,  as  elsewhere, 
the  worker  is  held  in  economic  bondage  by  force,  and  force  only  can 
emancipate  it.  P. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  39.     The  Alarm,  February  21,  1881. 

"  Dynamite."  Dynamite  is  the  good  stuff";  in  giving  it  to  the  down- 
trodden millions,  science  has  done  its  best  work.  It  can  be  carried  about 
in  the  pocket  without  danger,  while  it  is  a  formidable  weapon  against 


(170) 

force,  which  would  stifle  the  cry  for  justice  which  comes  forth  from  the 
plundered  slaves — not  ornamental,  but  useful.  It  is  a  boon  for  the  dis- 
inherited, while  it  brings  terror  to  the  robbers,  but  it  brings  terror  only 
to  the  guilty.  You  cannot  prohibit  its  manufacture  successfully.  A 
pound  of  this  good  stuff  beats  a  bushel  of  bullets.  "It  takes  more  just- 
ice and  right  than  is  contained  in  laws  to  quiet  the  sprit  of  unrest."  The 
sledge  to  shatter  every  link  is  dynamite. 

INDIANAPOLTS,  IND.  T.  LIZIUS. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  40.      From  the  Alarm,  March  7,  1885. 

"  Our  Agitators."  The  agitation  trips  of  Comrades  Gorsuch,  Fielclen 
and  Griffin  during  the  past  two  weeks,  was  prolific  of  good  results. 
Twelve  American  groups  were  organized  in  different  cities,  and  those 
united  with  the  international  are  working  "  to  bring  into  the  ranks  of  the 
revolutionary  army  the  proletariats  of  the  contiguous  districts.  The 
Workingpeople's  International  Association  now  embraces  eighty  groups, 
scattered  all  over  the  United  States,  mainly  in  centers  of  industry,  from 
which  the  propagandism  radiates  everywhere,  the  membership  being 
many  thousands.  In  Chicago,  with  thousands  of  members,  five  newspa- 
pers, with  increasing  circulations,  are  published.  The  good  work  goes 
bravely  on,  and  exertions  should  be  redoubled. 

"  Agitation  for  the  purpose  of  organization;  organization  for  the  pur- 
pose of  rebellion  against  wage  slavery,  is  the  duty  of  the  hour." 
Signed  "  P." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  41.     From  the  Alarm,  March  21,  1885. 

"  How  to  make  dynamite."  The  next  issue  of  the  Alarm  will  begin 
the  publication  of  a  series  of  articles  on  the  manufacture  and  use  of 
dynamite,  of  bombs,  etc. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  42,  from  the  Alarm  of   April  18,  1885. 

"  Assassination."  "  Assassination  is  stigmatized  as  barbarous  and 
cowardly,  which  is  sometimes  true,  but  there  are  instances  in  which  it  is 
brave,  humane  and  wise.  Governments  cannot  be  abolished  by  accepted 
methods,  because  it  requires  an  organized  government  for  the  contest. 
The  abolition  of  government  suggests  the  picture  of  diverse  petty  gov- 
ernments resulting  and  contending  with  one  another.  This  fact  sug- 
gests the  destruction  of  government  in  such  manner  as  to  prevent  the 
organization  of  other  governments.  This  can  only  be  done  by  assassi- 


nating  the  heads  of  governments,  and  thus  preventing  such  organization. 
Such  is  the  policy  of  the  nihilist  of  Russia.  Governments  least  offensive 
should  be  destroyed  last.  All  governments  exist  by  the  abridgment  of 
human  liberty.  Domineering  powers  should  be  treated  as  enemies. 
Assassination  will  remove  the  evil.  Man  will  always  need  officers, 
teachers,  leaders,  but  not  bosses,  jailers  or  drivers.  Man's  leader  is  his 
friend,  his  driver,  his  enemy.  Assassination,  properly  applied,  is  wise, 
humane  and  brave.  For  freedom  all  things  are  just."  Signed  "  G." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT,  43.     From  the  Alarm  of  April  18,  1885. 

"  Explosives."  "  The  power  of  dynamite,  as  illustrated  by  blasting 
exercises.  (Translated  from  Freiheit  by  A.  A.)" 

The  translation  is  substantially  the  same  as  a  portion  of  the  contents  of 
Most's  book,  presenting  the  results  of  the  experiments  by  the  Austrian 
government,  etc.,  etc. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  44.    From  the  Alarm  of  May  2,  1885. 

"  Bombs."  The  manufacture  and  use  of  the  deadly  dynamite  bomb 
made  easy.  The  weapon  of  the  social  revolutionists  falls  within  the 
reach  of  all.  The  terror  of  tyrants.  (Translation  from  Freiheit  by 
A.  A.)" 

This  exhibit,  we  believe,  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  portion  of 
Most's  book  treating  upon  the  manufacture  of  different  styles  of  dyna- 
mite bombs. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  45.     From  the  Alarm  of  June  27,  1885. 

"  Dynamite."     Instructions  regarding  its  use  and  operations. 

"  Though  every  one  speaks  of  dynamite,  few  know  its  character.  To 
those  who  will  sooner  or  later  be  forced  to  employ  its  destructive  quali- 
ties for  their  rights,  as  men  and  for  their  preservation,  a  few  hints  may 
not  be  of  out  place."  With  proper  care  dynamite  may  be  safely  handled. 
It  is  known  in  the  market  as  giant  powder,  and  is  a  mixture  of  nitro- 
glycerine with  clay  or  sawdust.  The  mixture  requires  a  chemist,  being 
dangerous.  Revolutionists  should  buy  dynamite  ready  made.  It  is 
cheap  and  can  be  purchased  from  any  large  powder  concern.  It  explodes 
at  a  temperature  of  180  degrees  Fahrenheit,  and  from  violent  concussion. 
It  ought  not  to  be  exposed  to  the  rays  of  the  sun  or  placed  near  a  stove. 
The  best  storage  is,  wrap  in  oil  paper,  place  in  a  box  of  sawdust  and 
bury  where  it  cannot  be  touched.  Do  not  thaw  frozen  dynamite,  and  be 


(I72) 

careful  not  to  get  any  of  the  dynamite  upon  your  lips  or  skin,  as  it  will 
give  a  headache.  In  filling  bombs  use  a  rubber  mitten  and  tie  a  hand- 
kerchief over  the  mouth  to  prevent  inhaling  dangerous  gases.  Never 
be  careless.  Keep  pure  and  avoid  sand.  The  revolutionst  should  prac- 
tice throwing  bombs.  For  further  information,  address  A.  S.,  Alarm, 

107  5th  avenue,  Chicago. 

« 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  46.     From  the  Alarm  of  May  30,  1885. 

"  War  with  all  means."  (Translation  from  Freiheit.)  Substantially 
the  same  as  that  portion  of  Most's  book  in  reference  to  the  use  of  com- 
bustibles, found  on  pages  30  to  32  of  People's  Exhibit  15. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  47.     From  the  Alarm,  June  13,  1885. 

"  Explosives."  "  Recent  experiments  have  greatly  increased  the  ex- 
plosive power  of  gun-cotton.  The  following  from  Johnson  Turner's 
work  of  chemistry  will  prove  valuable.  After  washing  the  gun-cotton 
in  light  soda  lye  and  rinsing  in  clean  water,  soak  in  a  solution  of  chlorate 
of  potash  before  drying.  This  will  make  its  explosive  power  equal  to 
dynamite.  Signed  A.  A," 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  48.     From  the  Alarm,  July  25,  1885. 

"  Street  fighting."  How  to  meet  the  enemy.  Some  valuable  hints 
for  the  revolutionary  soldiers.  What  an  officer  of  the  United  States 
army  has  to  say.  The  following  letter,  published  in  the  San  Francisco 
Truth  some  time  ago,  will  be  read  with  interest.  The  letter  is  quoted 
as  follows,  in  substance:  "I  am  an  officer  in  the  army  of  the  United 
States,  and  know  whereof  I  write.  John  Upton  said  to  me,  with  great 
earnestness,  that  the  day  of  armies  is  passing  away.  I  believe  this. 
This  introduces  my  subject.  I  desire  to  place  the  details  of  the  science 
of  butchery  before  the  people;  to  point  out  its  weak  points,  so  that  in 
future  uprisings  the  people  may  stand  some  chance  of  winning.  They 
have  for  the  past  twenty  years  been  overcome  only  because  of  their  own 
ignorance.  They  have  been  slaughtered  and  subdued  because  of  a  lack 
of  coolness,  want  of  knowledge,  and  adhtjrence  to  what  is  called  '  hu- 
manity,' '  honorable  warfare,'  etc.  I  assume  that  my  readers  agree  with 
me  that  against  tyrants  all  means  are  legitimate,  and  that  in  war  that 
course  is  best,  though  bloodiest,  which  soonest  ends  the  contest.  My 
purpose  is  to  persuade  the  people  to  add  a  little  common  sense  in  future 
to  their  gallant  heroism,  and  thus  insure  success. 


United  States  and  state  regiments  are  organized  on  the  unit  of  fours, 
which  permits  the  most  rapid  and  effective  change  of  front  that  can  be 
devised.  The  art  of  war  consists  in  making  soldiers  fight.  The  line  of 
retreat  must  be  kept  open  to  avoid  capture.  In  future  revolts  the  peo- 
ple shall  assume  the  aggressive.  Army  officers  have  wasted  years  of 
study  over  the  problem  of  street  fighting,  unavailingly.  The  plan  below 
shows  a  method  now  adopted  as  best.  The  troops  are  formed  on  the 
street  in  two  bodies  in  column  of  four,  headed  by  a  gatling  gun.  On 
the  sidewalk  a  line  of  skirmishers  and  sharpshooters,  whose  duty  it  is  to 
fire  into  the  houses,  the  whole  advancing  cautiously.  When  a  cross 
street  is  reached,  a  company  is  left  to  hold  it,  in  order  to  keep  open  the 
avenue  of  retreat.  Military  knowledge  has  become  popularized  since 
1877,  and  now,  in  almost  any  contest,  it  would  be  easy  to  find  some  fair 
leaders  of  the  people  who  would  devise  some  means  of  meeting  such  an 
advance,  as  indicated  by  the  following  diagram.  The  diagram  repre- 
sents a  street  corner.  The  plan  is,  at  the  street  crossing  to  have  bodies 
of  revolutionists  with  movable  barracks  placed  obliquely  on  the  cross 
street,  and  who  from  there  will  fire  vigorously  upon  the  advancing  col- 
umn. They  have  supporters  also  in  the  building,  also  at  the  corner, 
whose  duty  it  is  to  throw  dynamite  upon  the  troops.  If  the  position  is 
carried,  the  party  defending  escape  through  the  cross  street.  The  rear 
of  the  column  can  also  be  attacked  from  the  cross  streets.  "  If  the  men 
in  the  barricades  are  armed  with  the  new  international  dynamite  rifle 
(which  I  am  told  exists  in  the  hands  of  the  revolutionists),  I  give  it  as  a 
careful  technical  opinion,  that,  pursuing  these  tactics  under  brave  and 
able  leaders,  fifty  men  can  hold  at  bay  and  finally  destroy  in  any  of  your 
cities  an  attacking  force  of  five  thousand  troops."  Signed  "  R.  S.  S." 
Alcatraz  Island,  December  8. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  49.     From  the  Alarm  of  August  22,  1885. 

"  Wage  slavery."  "  The  private  property  system  has  doomed  mill- 
ions to  enforced  idleness  and  slow  starvation  in  the  United  States.  These 
unemployed  wage  slaves,  more  wretched  than  the  chattel  slave,  can  find 
no  master  willing  to  give  them  work  or  bread. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  No.  50.     The  Alarm,  September  5th,  1885. 

"  Eight  Hours."  Our  Reply.  Will  the  rich  help  to  bring  it  about, 
or  oppose  it  with  starvation,  prisons  and  cold  steel?  Will  increasing 
machinery  increase  the  number  of  unemployed?  Shortening  the  hours 


(^74) 

of  labor  is  no  real  remedy.  It  still  leaves  wage  slavery,  and  there  can- 
not be  any  peace  under  that  master  and  servant  system.  The  power  to 
accumulate  is  not  equally  bestowed,  and  as  no  man  has  made  himself,  no 
one  is  to  blame  for  a  want  of  this  power;  nor  is  it  a  virtue  in  him  who 
possesses  it.  "  A  man  gets  rich  by  meanness  and  remains  poor  because 
he  is  generous."  How  long  can  we  endure  a  system  that  rewards  mean- 
ness and  starves  generosity?  Can  you  shorten  the  hours?  Will  they 
help  to  bring  about  a  condition  where  there  are  no  unemployed  men,  to 
be  called  upon  by  them  in  their  effort  to  force  down  wages  by  the  pro- 
cess of  competition?  Private  property  makes  competition  necessary,  and 
monopoly  results.  We  must  strike  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  all  short 
of  this  is  useless  patchwork.  It  is  foolish  to  quarrel  about  the  odds  and 
ends  of  a  bad  system,  but  we  must  have  patience  with  the  humble 
minded. 

The  Alarm  does  not  antagonize  the  eight-hour  movement.  It  simply 
says  that  it  will  be  inefficient.  In  England  the  shortening  of  the  hours  of 
labor  was  immediately  followed  by  a  general  increase  of  machines  and  a 
subsequent  discharge  of  a  proportionate  number  of  employes,  whereby 
the  exploitation  of  those  at  work  was  intensified,  they  now  performing 
more  labor  than  before.  The  eight-hour  system  would  result  in  further 
breaking  down  small  manufacturers  and  increasing  the  larger  establish- 
ments, while  over-production  would  still  remain.  It  is  said  that  capital 
is  rightfully  a  servant  of  labor,  and  when  it  oversteps  its  bounds  becomes 
a  trespasser.  But  capital  is  not  the  servant  of  labor,  but  of  its  possessor. 

"  In  regard  to  the  proposed  strike  next  spring,  a  few  practical  words. 
There  are  eight  hundred  thousand  organized  workers  in  the  country,  and 
about  two  million  unemployed  men.  When  the  demand  is  made,  it  will 
be  denied,  and  the  employers  will  draw  from  this  army  of  the  unem- 
ployed. The  strikers  will  attempt  to  stop  them.  Then  comes  the 
police  and  the  militia.  Say,  workingmen,  are  you  prepared  to  meet  the 
latter?  are  you  armed?"  Signed  "  A." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  51.     The  Alarm,  October  17,  1885. 

"  Eight  Hours.  Trades  unions  gather  in  mass  meeting  at  Turner 
Hall.  They  prepare  for  the  inauguration  of  the  eight-hour  working  day. 
Resolutions  to  arm  and  defend  themselves  against  the  starvation,  prisons 
and  cold  steel  of  capitalists." 

Samuel  Fielden,  the  first  speaker,  reviewed  the  conditions  existing 
between  capital  and  labor,  as  evidenced  by  strikes,  etc.,  dwelt  upon  the 


grinding  tyrrany  of  capital,  referred  to  the  St.  Louis  strike,  and  the 
policy  pursued  by  the  owners  of  the  Pullman  car  works  to  prevent 
organization  of  skilled  labor,  although  the  capitalists  themselves  organ- 
ize and  band  together.  The  Saginaw  lumber  owners  asked  their  em- 
ployes to  agree  even  not  to  appeal  to  the  law.  The  capitalist  can  destroy 
the  satisfactory  working  of  the  eight-hour  law.  The  real  remedy  is  the 
abolition  of  the  right  of  private  property.  The  eight-hour  law  on  the 
statute  books  of  Illinois  is  a  dead-letter.  These  things  show  that  the 
wage-worker  must  look,  not  to  the  law,  but  to  themselves  to  assert  their 
rights.  August  Spies  introduced  resolutions,  reciting  that,  whereas,  it 
was  believed  that  the  capitalists  would  oppose  the  eight-hour  movement, 
calling  to  their  assistance  the  Pinkerton's  police  and  state  militia;  there- 
fore, resolved,  that  wage-workers  be  urged  to  prepare  to  meet  their 
enemies  with  their  own  argument,  force.  That  while  skeptical  as  to  the 
results  of  an  eight-hour  day,  they  yet  pledged  themselves  to  co-operate 
to  bring  it  to  pass,  and  to  combine  with  their  brethren  in  the  class 
struggle  against  the  aristocratic  class:  the  brutal  murderers  of  comrades 
in  St.  Louis,  Lemont,  Philadelphia,  Chicago  and  elsewhere,  and  that 
our  war-cry  may  be  "  Death  to  the  enemy  of  the  human  race,  our  de- 
stroyers." Mr.  Spies  said  that  with  nine  million  people  in  this  country 
in  industrial  trades,  only  one  million  of  them  organized,  and  with  two 
million  unemployed  people,  the  movement  to  be  made  successful  must 
be  revolutionary.  "  Don't  let  us,"  he  exclaimed,  "  forget  the  most  forci- 
ble argument  of  all — the  gun  and  dynamite." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  52.    From  the  Alarm,  May  2,  1885. 

"  Our  Vampires."  At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Fielden's  speech,  Mr. 
Parsons  said:  At  5  o'clock  this  morning  one  hundred  thousand  wage- 
workers  in  Chicago  rose,  and  after  their  frugal  breakfast  went  to  their 
factories,  where  they  gave  from  ten  to  sixteen  hours  for  wages  barely 
sufficient  for  subsistence.  Twenty  thousand  able-bodied  men,  unem- 
ployed, tramped  the  streets,  unable  to  find  employment.  To-night  the 
robbers  of  labor's  product  are  dedicating  a  temple  to  the  God  of  Mam- 
mon, to  be  used  to  plunder  the  people.  We  have  met,  as  anarchists  and 
communists,  to  protest  against  the  methods  and  practices  of  the  existing 
society.  The  board  of  trade  is  an  institution  devoted  to  making  the 
food  of  the  people  dear  and  scarce — dedicated  to  chicanery  and  legalized 
theft.  It  runs  corners  and  manipulates  prices.  There  is  not  a  stone  in 
the  building  that  has  not  been  carved  out  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  labor 


(i76) 

and  cemented  by  the  tears  of  the  women  and  children  of  toil.  The 
practices  of  these  men  send  our  little  ones  supperless  to  bed  and  bring 
wretchedness  where  peace  and  plenty  should  prevail.  Is  not  our  natural 
right  to  life,  liberty  and  happiness  equal  to  any  one  else's?  But  the 
present  private  property  system  creates  classes  and  inequalities,  "  con- 
ferring upon  the  holders  of  property  the  power  to  live  upon  the  labor 
product  of  the  propertyless.  Whoever  owns  our  bread  owns  our  bal- 
lots, for  a  man  who  must  sell  his  labor  or  starve  must  sell  his  vote  when 
the  same  alternative  is  presented."  This  conspiracy  is  maintained  by 
statute  law  and  enforced  by  military  arms.  If  we  would  achieve  our 
liberties,  we  must  arm  ourselves,  then  raise  the  standard  of  revolt,  the 
scarlet  banner  of  liberty,  fraternity  and  equality,  and  strike  down  every 
tyrant.  Therefore,  agitate  for  the  purpose  of  organization,  organize  for 
the  purpose  of  rebellion,  for  wage  slaves  have  nothing  to  lose  but  their 

chains;  they  have  a  world  of  freedom  and  happiness  to  win. 

• 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  54. 

The  following  advertisement,  contained  in  the  Alarm,  from  August 
17,  1885,  to  its  last  issue:  "  The  armed  section  of  the  American  group 
meets  every  Monday  night  at  54  West  Lake  street." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  54.     From  the  Alarm,  December  26,  1865. 

"  (A  free  translation  from  the  German.)  Bakunin's  groundwork  for 
the  social  revolution.  A  revolutionist's  duty  to  himself." 

1.  The  revolutionist  is  self-offered;  has  no  personal  interest,  but  is 
absorbed  by  the  one  passion,  the  revolution. 

2.  He  is  at  war  with    the  existing  order   of    society  and    lives    to 
destroy  it. 

3.  He  despises  society  in  its  present  form  and  leaves  its  reorganiza- 
tion to  the  future,  himself  knowing  only  the  science  of  destruction.     He 
studies   mathematics,  chemistry,  etc.,  for  this   purpose.     The  'quick   and 
sure  overthrow  of  the  present  unreasonable  order  is  his  object. 

4.  He  despises  public  sentiment  and  acknowledges  as  moral  whatever 
favors  the  revolution;  as  criminal  whatever  opposes  it. 

5.  He  is  consecrated;  he  will  not  spare,  nor  does  he  expect  mercy. 
Between  him  and  society  reigns  the  war  of  death  or  life. 

6.  Stringent    with   himself,  he   must   be   stringent   with   others.     All 
sentiment  must  be  suppressed  by  his  passion  for  the  revolutionary  work. 
He  must  be  ready  to  die  and  to  kill. 


(i77) 

7.  He  excludes  romance  and  sentiment  and  also  personal  hatred  and 
revenge;  never  obeying  his  personal  inclinations,  but  his  revolutionary 
duty. 

TOWARD    HIS    COMRADES. 

8.  His  friendship  is  only  for  his  comrade,  and  is   measured  by  that 
comrade's  usefulness  in  the  practical  work  in  the  revolution. 

9.  As  to  important  affairs,  he  must  consult  with  his  comrades,  but  in 
execution  depend  upon  himself.     Each  must  be  self-operating,  and  must 
ask  help  only  when  imperatively  necessary. 

10.  He  shall  use  himself  and  his  subordinates  as  capital  to  be  used 
for  the  work  of  the  revolution,  but  no  part  of  which  can  he  dispose  of 
without  the  consent  of  the  persons  involved. 

11.  If  a  comrade  is  in  danger,  he  shall  not  consider  his  personal  feel- 
ings, but  the  interest  of  the  cause. 

HIS    DUTY    TOWARD    SOCIETY. 

12.  A  new  candidate  can  be  taken  into  the  company  only  after  proof 
of  his  merit,  and  upon  unanimous  consent. 

13.  He  lives  in    the  so-called  civilized  world  because   he  believes- 
in    its  speedy   destruction.       He    clings    to    nothing  as  it  now    is,   and 
does  not  hesitate  to  destroy  any  institution.     He  is  no  revolutionist  if  ar- 
rested by  personal  ties. 

14.  He  must   obtain    entrance   everywhere,    even   in    the    detective 
agency  and  the  emperor's  palace. 

15.  The  present  society  should  be  divided  into  categories,  the  first  in- 
cluding those  sentenced  to  immediate  death,  the  others  classifying  the  de- 
linquents according  to  their  rascality. 

1 6.  The  lists  are  not  to  be  influenced  by  personal  considerations,  but 
those  are  to  be  first  destroyed  whose  death  can  terrify  governments  and 
deprive  them  of  their  most  intelligent  agents. 

17.  The  second  category  embraces  those  permitted  to  live,  but  whose 
evil  deeds  will  drive  the  people  to  open  revolt.  | 

18.  The  third  category  embraces   the  dissolute   rich  whose   secrets 
must  be  discovered  in  order  to  control  their  resources. 

19.  The  fourth  category  consists   of  ambitious  officials   and  liberals 
whose  purposes  we   must   discover  so   as  to    prevent   their  withdrawing 
from  our  cause. 

20.  The  fifth  category  consists  of  doctrinaire  conspirators;  they  must 
be  urged  to  action. 


(178) 

2i.  The  sixth  category  is  the  women,  who  are  divided  into  three 
classes:  First,  the  brainless  and  heartless;  second,  the  passionate  and 
qualified;  and,  third,  the  wholly  consecrated,  who  are  to  be  guarded  as 
the  most  valuable  part  of  the  revolutionary  treasures. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  55.     From  the  Alarm,  February  6,  1886. 

Capt.  Bonfield  has  written  that  but  for  his  interference  and  clubbing 
in  the  July  carmen's  strike,  many  an  American  sovereign  would  now  be 
in  a  felon's  grave.  "  Paste  this  in  your  hats,  American  sovereigns." 
That  a  felon's  cell  or  grave  awaits  you  as  soon  -as  you  try  to  exercise 
your  rights. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  56.     From  the  Alarm  of  January  9th,  1885. 

"  Bureau  of  information,"  designated  to  act  for  the  ensuing  year,  con- 
sisting of  Joseph  Back,  B.  Rau,  August  Spies,  A.  R.  Parsons  and 
Hirschberger. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  57.    From  the  Alarm,  March  20,  1886.    Note  on  third 

page. 

Argument  is  useless  unless  you  can  compel  your  antagonist  to  listen. 
When  he  refuses,  force  becomes  necessary. 

PEOPLES'  EXHIBIT  58.     From  the  Alarm  of  April   3,  1886. 

"  American  group,"  etc.  "  Mr.  Parsons  thought  the  organization 
of  the  vast  body  of  unskilled  and  unorganized  laboring  men 
and  women  a  necessity,  in  order  that  they  formulate  their  demands  and 
make  an  effective  defense  of  their  right.  He  thought  the 
attempt  to  inaugurate  the  eight-hour  system  would  break  down  the 
capitalistic  system,  and  bring  about  such  disorder  and  hardship  that  the 
social  revolution  would  become  a  necessity.  As  all  roads  in  ancient 
times  led  to  Rome,  so  now  all  labor  movements  of  whatever  character 
inevitably  lead  to  socialism."  The  unskilled  laborers'  eight-hour  league 
was  then  organized,  thirty  joining. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  59.     From  the  Alarm  of  April  24,  1886. 

"  Workingmen,  to  Arms."  "  War  to  the  palace,  peace  to  the  cottage 
and  death  to  luxurious  idleness.  The  wage  system  is  the  only  cause  of 
the  world's  misery. 

"  One  pound  of  dynamite  is  better  than  a   bushel  of  bullets.     Make 


your  demand  for  eight  hours  with  weapons  in    your  hands    to   meet  the 
capitalistic  blood-hounds,  police  and  militia  in  proper  manner." 

Above  handbill,  sent  from  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  as  posted  all  over 
that  city  last  week. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  60.     From  the  Alarm  April   24,  1886. 
Same  as  People's  Exhibit  56. 

PEOPLE'S   EXHIBIT  6oA. 

The  sensible  laboring  man,  in  the  eye  of  the  extortionist,  is  a  fellow 
who  lets  his  family  starve  to  please  his  boss;  a  coward  who  crawls 
when  men  are  needed;  a  ragamuffin  who  kisses  the  rod. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  61.     From  the  Alarm,  April  24,  1886. 

"  Knaves  or  fools."  In  the  contest  between  labor  and  capital  now  in 
progress,  pretended  leaders  deprecate  the  use  by  the  toiling  masses  of 
the  only  weapons  which  they  possess  against  capitalistic  conspiracy,  and 
organized  murder,  starvation  and  wage  slavery.  These  creatures  de- 
sire place  for  themselves,  or  are  tickled  by  being  quoted  as  leaders. 
They  play  the  role  of  harmonizers  and  peacemakers  between  wage 
slaves  and  their  despoilers.  The  toiling  masses  never  authorized  Mr. 
Powderly  to  issue  a  proclamation  against  the  eight-hour  movement,  nor 
to  forbid  strikes  or  boycots.  "  The  social  war  has  come,  and  whoever 
is  not  with  us  is  against  us." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  61  A. 

Refers  to  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  calls  upon  the  people  to  be 
present. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  62. 

Same  as  page  32  of  Herr  Most's  book. 

PEOPLE'S    EXHIBIT    63.      From    the    Arbeiter    Zeitung   of   May   4th 

(local  column). 

"  Blood."  "  Lead  and  powder  as  a  cure  for  dissatisfied  workinginen. 
About  six  laborers  mortally,  and  four  times  that  number  slightly, 
wounded.  Thus  are  the  eight-hour  men  intimidated!  This  is  law  and 
order!  Brave  girls  parading  the  city!  The  law  and  order  beasts  frighten 
the  hungry  children  away  with  clubs.  General  news." 

Six  months   ago,  when    the   eight-hour   movement   began,  representa- 


(,8o) 

lives  of  the  I.  A.  A.  called  upon  workmen  to  arm  if  they  would  enforce 
their  demand.  Would  the  occurrence  of  yesterday  have  been  possible 
had  that  advice  been  followed?  Yesterday,  at  McCormick's  factory,  so 
far  as  can  now  be  ascertained,  four  workmen  were  killed  and  twenty- 
five  more  or  less  seriously  wounded.  "  If  members  who  defended  them- 
selves with  stones  (a  few  of  them  had  little  snappers  in  the  shape  of  re- 
volvers), had  been  provided  with  good  weapons  and  one  single  dynamite 
bomb,  not  one  of  the  murderers  would  have  escaped  his  well-merited 
fate."  This  massacre  was  to  fill  the  workmen  of  this  city  with  fear. 
Will  it  succeed? 

A  meeting  of  the'  lumber  employes  was  held  yesterday  at  the  Black 
road  to  appoint  a  committee  to  wait  on  the  committee  of  the  owners 
and  present  the  demands  agreed  upon.  It  was  an  immense  meeting. 
Several  speeches  were  made  in  English,  German  and  Polish.  Finally 
Mr.  Spies  was  introduced,  when  a  Pole  cried,  "  That  is  a  socialist,"  and 
great  disapprobation  was  expressed,  but  the  speaker  continued  telling  them 
that  they  must  realize  their  strength,  and  must  not  recede  from  their  de- 
mands; that  the  issue  lay  in  their  hands,  and  needed  only  resolution  upon 
their  part. 

At  this  point  some  one  cried,  "  On  to  McCormick's.  Let  us  drive  oft 
the  scabs,"  and  about  two  hundred  ran  towards  McCormick's.  The 
speaker,  not  knowing  what  occurred,  continued  his  speech,  and  was  ap- 
pointed afterwards  a  member  of  the  committee  to  notify  the  bosses  of 
the  action. 

Then  a  Pole  spoke,  when  a  patrol  wagon  rushed  up  to  McCormick's, 
and  the  crowd  began  to  break  up.  Shortly  shots  were  heard  near  Mc- 
Cormick's factory,  and  about  seventy-five  well-fed,  large  and  strong 
murderers,  under  the  command  of  a  fat  police  lieutenant,  marched  by, 
followed  by  three  more  patrol  wagons  full  of  law  and  order  beasts.  Two 
hundred  police  were  there  in  less  than  ten  minutes,  "  firing  on  fleeing  work- 
ingmen  and  women."  The  writer  hastened  to  the  factory,  while  a  com- 
rade urged  the  assembly  to  rescue  their  brothers,  unavailingly.  A  young , 

Irishman  said  to  the  writer:  "  What  miserable  ( — )    are  those  who 

will  not  turn  a  hand  while  their  brothers  are  being  shot  down  in  cold 
blood!  We  have  dragged  away  two.  I  think  they  are  dead.  If  you 
have  any  influence  with  the  people,  for  Heaven's  sake,  run  back  and 
urge  them  to  follow  you."  The  writer  did  so  in  vain.  The  revolvers 
were  still  cracking;  fresh  policemen  arriving;  and  the  battle  was  lost. 
It  was  about  half-past  3  that  the  little  crowd  from  the  meeting  reached 


McCormick's  factory.  Policeman  West  tried  to  hold  them  back  with . 
his  revolver,  but  was  put  to  flight  with  a  shower  of  stones  and  roughly 
handled.  The  crowd  bombarded  the  factory  windows  with  stones  and 
demolished  the  guard  house.  The  scabs  were  in  mortal  terror  when  the 
Hinman  street  patrol  wagon  arrived.  They  were  about  to  attack  the 
crowd  with  their  clubs  when  a  shower  of  stones  was  thrown,  followed 
the  next  minute  by  the  firing  by  the  police  upon  the  strikers.  It  was 
pretended  subsequently  that  they  fired  over  their  heads.  The  strikers 
had  a  few  revolvers  and  returned  the  fire.  Meantime,  more  police  ar- 
rived and  then  the  whole  band  opened  fire  on  the  people.  The  people 
fought  with  stones,  and  are  said  to  have  disabled  four  policemen.  The 
gang,  as  always,  fired  upon  the  fleeing,  while  women  and  men  carried 
away  the  severly  wounded.  How  many  were  injured  cannot  be  told. 
A  dying  boy,  Joseph  Doebick,  was  brought  home  on  an  express  wagon  by 
two  policemen.  The  crowd  threatened  to  lynch  the  officer,  but  were 
prevented  by  a  patrol  wagon.  Various  strikers  were  arrested.  Mc- 
Cormick  said  that  August  Spies  made  a  speech  to  a  few  thousand  an- 
archists and  then  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a  crowd  and  attacked  our 
works.  Our  workmen  fled  and  meantime  the  police  came  and  sent  a 
lot  of  anarchists  away  with  bleeding  heads. 

Last  night  thousands  of  copies  of  the  following  circular  were  dis- 
tributed in  all  parts  of  the  city. 

Then  follows  a  translation  of  the  German  part  of  the  Revenge  circular, 
as  follows: 

"Revenge!  Revenge!  Workmen  to  arms! 

"  Men  of  labor,  this  afternoon  the  blood-hounds  of  your  oppressors 
murdered  six  of  your  brothers  at  McCormick's.  Why  did  they  murder 
them?  Because  they  dared  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  lot  which  your 
oppressors  have  assigned  to  them.  They  demanded  bread,  and  they 
gave  them  lead  for  an  answer,  mindful  of  the  fact  that  thus  people  are 
most  effectually  silenced.  You  have  for  many  years  endured  every  hu- 
miliation without  protest,  have  drudged  from  early  in  the  morning  until 
late  at  night,  have  suffered  all  sorts  of  privations,  have  even  sacrificed 
your  children.  You  have  done  everything  to  fill  the  coffers  of  your 
masters — everything  for  them!  And  now,  when  vou  approach  them 
and  implore  them  to  make  your  burden  a  little  lighter,  as  a  reward  for 
your  sacrifices,  they  send  their  blood-hounds,  the  police,  at  you,  in  order 
to  cure  you  with  bullets  of  your  dissatisfaction.  Slaves,  we  ask  and 
conjure  you,  by  all  that  is  sacred  and  dear  to  you,  avenge  the  atrocious 


(182) 

murder  that  has  been  committed  upon  your  brothers  to-day  and  which 
will  likely  be  committed  upon  you  to-morrow.  Laboring  men,  Hercules, 
you  have  arrived  at  the  crossway.  Which  way  will  you  decide? 
For  slavery  and  hunger  or  for  freedom  and  bread?  If  you  decide  for 
the  latter,  then  do  not  delay  a  moment;  then;  people,  to  arms!  Annihi- 
lation to  the  beasts  in  human  form  who  call  themselves  rulers!  Un- 
compromising annihilation  to  them!  This  must  be  your  motto.  Think 
of  the  heroes  whose  blood  has  fertilized  the  road  to  progress,  liberty  and 
humanity,  and  strive  to  become  worthy  of  them! 

"Youa  BROTHERS." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  63 A.     Arbeiter  Zeitung,  May  i. 

"  Bravely  forward."  The  conflict  has  begun.  An  arm}'  of  wage  la- 
borers are  idle.  Capitalism  conceals  its  tiger  claws  behind  the  ramparts 
of  order.  Workmen,  let  your  watchword  be:  No  compromise!  Cow- 
ards to  the  rear!  Men,  to  the  front.  The  die  is  cast.  The  ist  of  May 
has  come.  For  twenty  years  the  working  people  have  been  begging 
extortioners  to  introduce  the  eight-hour  system,  but  have  been  put  oft 
with  promises.  Two  years  ago  they  resolved  that  the  eight-hour  system 
should  be  introduced  in  the  United  States  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1886. 
The  reasonableness  of  this  demand  was  conceded  on  all  hands.  Every- 
body, apparently,  was  in  favor  of  shortening  the  hours,  but  as  the  time 
approached  a  change  became  apparent.  That  which  was  in  theory 
modest  and  reasonable  became  insolent  and  unreasonable.  It  became 
apparent  at  last  that  the  eight-hour  hymn  had  only  been  struck  up  to 
keep  the  labor  dunces  from  socialism. 

That  the  laborers  might  energetically  insist  upon  the  eight-hour  move- 
ment never  occurred  to  the  employers.  And  it  is  proposed  again  to  put 
them  off  with  promises.  -We  are  not  afraid  of  the  masses  of  laborers, 
but  of  their  pretended  leaders.  Workmen,  insist  upon  the  eight-hour 
movement.  "To  all  appearances  it  will  not  pass  off"  smoothly."  The 
extortioners  are  determined  to  bring  their  laborers  back  to  servitude 
by  starvation.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  workmen  will  submit  or  will 
impart  to  their  would-be  murderers  an  appreciation  of  modern  views. 
We  hope  the  latter. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  24.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  May  4,  1886. 

Heroes  of  the  club  with  their  cudgels  in  a  brutal  manner  yesterday  dis- 
persed a  crowd  of  girls.  Many  of  them  had  scarcely  outgrown  their 


baby-shoes.     Whose  blood  does  not   rush  quicker  when  he  hears  of  this 
atrocity?     Men,  to  the  front! 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  64A-     From  Verbote  of  May  5. 

"  To  Arms."  As  we  go  to  press  the  law-and-order  rabble  are  shoot- 
ing down  our  brothers  in  the  vicinity  of  McCormick's  factory.  Details 
are  wanted. 

PEOPLE'S    EXHIBIT   65.    From  the  editorial  notices   Arbeiter   Zeitung, 

May  4,  1866. 

The  reports  of  the  capitalistic  press  were  dictated  by  the  police.  The 
reporters  skedaddled  at  McCormick's. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  66.     From  the  editorial  notices   Arbeiter    Zeitung, 

May  4. 

The  armory  is  guarded  by  militia  tramps.  As  long  as  the  youngsters 
stay  in  their  barracks  they  will  probably  not  be  molested,  but  if  they  ap- 
pear on  the  streets  it  might  be  otherwise. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  67. 

Milwaukee  was  yesterday  the  scene  of  labor  riots.  "  You  will  never 
bring  about  the  eight-hour  system  in  your  Sunday  clothes  and  by  parad- 
ing the  streets." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  68.  From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  local  column,  May  3. 

"A  Hot  Conflict.  The  determination  of  the  radical  elements  brings 
the  extortioners  in  numerous  instances  to  terms.  The  capitalistic  press 
has  good  grounds  for  abusing  the  Reds.  Without  them  no  agitation." 

The  general  situation  at  noon  to-day,  encouraging.  A  number  of  cap- 
italists have  capitulated  and  others  are  looked  for.  The  freight-handlers 
are  marching  from  depot  to  depot  and  the  police  are  entrenched  in  the 
armory.  The  laborers  in  the  stone-yards  have  formed  a  union,  and  went 
on  a  strike  upon  the  refusal  of  their  demand  of  nine  hours'  pay  for  eight 
hour's  work.  A  strike  will  probably  lake  place  in  the  lumber  districts, 
etc. 

Courage,  courage  is  our  cry.  Don't  forget  the  words  of  Herways: 
"  The  host  of  the  oppressors  grows  pale,  when  thou,  weary  of  thy 
burden,  in  the  corner  puttest  the  plow;  when  thou  sayest  'it  is 
enough.' '' 


(  '84  ) 

PEOPLE'S   EXHIBIT  69.     From   the  Arbeiter   Zeitung,   April    28,  1886. 

Editorial  on  the  second  page. 

"  In  quiet  times  the  shackles  of  law  were  forged,  to  apply  them  in  tem- 
pestuous times.  An  effort  is  made  to  build  a  wall  against  the  stream  of 
the  laborers'  movement,  by  using  their  musty  law  books.  We  will  break 
these.  The  power  of  associate  manufacturers  must  be  met  by  labor 
associations.  The  police  and  soldiers  who  fight  for  that  power  must  be 
met  bv  armed  bodies  of  workingmen.  Stones  and  sticks  will  not  avail 
against  the  assassins  of  the  extortionists.  It  is  time  to  arm  yourselves 
by  firearms.  The  eight-hour  movement  is  modest,  yet  the  capitalists 
rage  and  threaten  with  their  police  and  militia. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  70.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  April  2pth.    Edi- 
torial notice,  first  page. 

"  When  legitimate  means  are  exhausted  the  extortioners  resort  to  force. 
A  wage  slave,  not  utterly  demoralized,  should  have  a  breach-loader  and 
ammunition." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT    71.       From    the     Arbeiter    Zeitung    local    column, 

April  3oth. 

"'  What  will  the  ist  of  May  bring?  The  workingmen  bold  and  deter- 
mined.' The  decisive  day  has  arrived.  The  workingman,  inspired  by 
the  justice  of  his  cause,  demands  ah  alleviation  of  his  lot,  a  lessening  of 
his  burden.  The  answer,  as  always  is:  '  Insolent  rabble!  Do  you  mean 
to  dictate  to  us?  That  you  will  do  to  your  sorrow.  Hunger  will  soon 
rid  you  of  your  desire  for  any  notions  of  liberty.  Police,  executioners 
and  militia  will  give  their  aid.'  Men  of  labor,  so  long  as  you  acknowledge 
the  gracious  kicks  of  your  oppressors  with  words  of  gratitude,  so  long 
you  are  faithful  dogs.  Have  your  skulls  been  penetrated  by  a  ray  of 
light,  or  does  hunger  drive  you  to  shake  off  your  servile  nature,  you 
offend  your  extortioners.  They  are  enraged,  and  will  attempt,  through 
hired  murderers,  to  do  away  with  you  like  mad  dogs.  In  this  grand 
struggle  for  existence  on  the  part  of  the  people,  it  is  claimed  that  the 
whole  movement  is  instigated  by  a  few  German  communists.  They  do 
not  deserve  the  compliment.  It  is  true  that  the  intellectual  thought  under- 
lying the  modern  labor  movement  is  socialism,  and  that  communists  have 
a  hand  in  the  game,  but  it  is  the  people  who  in  their  obscure  aspiration 
follow  on  the  ladder  of  historical  development,  conscious  of  the  true 
way.  The  masses  simply  act  under  the  law  of  necessity." 


PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  72.     From  Die  Fackel  of  May  2d. 

"  Now  or  never.  The  mortal  enemies  cross  swords.  The  most 
modest  demands  of  the  bees  of  labor  insolently  refused  by  the  drones. 
Numerous  strikes." 

Let  us  review  the  situation  of  the  contending  forces.  Fanatics  have 
said  that  the  modest  eight-hour  demand  would  meet  no  serious  opposi- 
tion. But,  as  we  always  predicted,  the  proprietor  class  make  no  conces- 
sions— it  only  yields  to  force.  The  exception  does  not  change  the  rule. 
Even  where  workmen  propose  to  accept  a  corresponding  reduction  of 
wages,  their  appeal  for  a  reduction  of  hours  is  denied.  In  the  face  of 
these  facts,  it  is  treacherous  to  warn  workmen  against  energetic  measures. 
Everything  depends  upon  quick  and  immediate  action.  The  tactics  of 
the  strikers  must  be  to  grant  no  time.  The  battle  must  be  won  imme- 
diately or  not  at  all.  To  accept  the  nine  hours  is  to  defeat  the  eight- 
hour  system.  The  feeling  among'  radical  labor  organizations  is  en- 
couraging. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  73.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  May  4.     Editorial. 

"  Blood  has  flown."  It  happened  as  it  had  to.  The  militia  have  not 
been  drilling  in  vain.  It  is  historical  that  private  property  had  its  origin 
in  violence.  The  war  of  classes  has  come.  Yesterday,  in  front  of  Mc- 
Cormick's  factory,  workmen  were  shot  down  whose  blood  cries  for  ven- 
geance. In  the  past  countless  victims  have  been  offered  on  the  altars  of  the 
golden  calf  amid  the  shouts  of  capitalistic  robbers.  One  has  only  to  think 
of  East  St.  Louis,  Chicago  and  other  places,  to  recognize  the  tactics  of 
the  extortioners.  The  while  terror  will  be  answered  with  the  red,  for 
the  workmen  are  not  asleep.  They  modestly  asked  for  eight  hours.  The 
answer  was  to  drill  the  police  force  and  militia,  and  browbeat  those  ad- 
vocating the  change.  And  yesterday  blood  flowed — the  reply  of  these 
devils  to  this  modest  petition  of  their  slaves.  Death  rather  than  a  life  of 
wretchedness.  The  capitalistic  tiger  lies  ready  for  the  jump,  his  eyes 
sparkling,  eager  for  murder,  and  his  clutches  drawn  tight.  Self-defense 
cries,  "  To  arms,  to  arms."  If  you  do  not  defend  yourselves  you  will  be 
ground  by  the  animal's  teeth. 

The  powers  hostile  to  the  workingmen  have  made  common  cause,  and 
our  differences  must  be  subordinated  to  the  common  purpose.  The  state- 
ment of  the  capitalistic  press,  that  the  workmen  yesterday  fired  first,  is  a 
bold,  barefaced  lie. 

In  the  poor   shanty  miserably  clad  women   and   children   are  weeping 


(,86) 

for  husband  and  father.  In  the  palace  they  touch  glasses  filled  with 
costly  wine  and  drink  to  the  happiness  of  the  bloody  bandits  of  law  and 
order.  Dry  your  tears,  ye  poor  and  wretched;  take  heart,  ye  slaves; 
arise  in  your  might  and  overthrow  the  system  of  robbery. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  74. 

An  outbreak  was  expected  in  the  south-west  side  this  morning,  and  the 
entire  force  was  held  ready.  Stir,  free  workmen,  if  you  want  to  be  shot 
down. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  75.     From  the   Arbeiter  Zeitung,  October  8,  1885. 

All  organized  workingmen  should  engage  in  a  general  prosecution  of 
Pinkerton's  secret  police.  Every  day  somewhere  one  of  their  carcasses 
should  be  found.  This  should  be  kept  up  until  nobody  would  consent  to 
become  the  blood-hound  of  these  assassins. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  76.     From   the   Arbeiter  Zeitung,  October  5,    1885. 

Second  page,  editorial. 

In  Milwaukee,  as  in  England,  the  work  of  persecuting  socialists  goes 
on,  but  here  they  use  the  whip  of  hunger,  blacklisting  every  agitator. 
This,  in  the  Hocking  valley,  in  the  lumber  regions  of  Michigan,  and  else- 
where. The  worst  of  this  is  that  nearly  every  such  man  has  a  little 
home  or  cottage,  representing  the  savings  of  a  life-time,  and  which  is 
valueless  to  him  if  he  loses  employment  where  he  is.  The  question  is 
whether  this  kind  of  treatment  will  be  tolerated.  Every  man  who  is  op- 
posed to  it  should  at  once  join  the  revolutionary  army. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  77.     November  17,  1885.     Fourth  page. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  north-west  side  group  of  the  I.  A.  A.,  58  Cly- 
bourn  avenue,  it  was  resolved  to  drill  every  Sunday  in  their  hall,  and 
that  workingmen  should  be  invited  who,  on  the  ist  of  May,  want  to 
come  to  the  front  for  an  eight-hour  day. 

PEOPLE'S    EXHIBIT    78.     Arbeiter    Zeitung,  fourth    page,    November 

27th,    1885. 

"  Letter-box."  "  S.  Steel  and  iron  are  not  on  hand,  but  tin  two  or 
three  inches  in  diameter;  the  price  is  cheap.  It  does  not  amount  to  fifty 
cents  apiece. 


(i87) 

PEOPLE'S    EXHIBIT    79.     Arbeiter    Zeitung,    November     27th,     1885. 

Fourth  page. 

Report  of  meeting  on  Market  square,  Thanksgiving.  Speakers: 
Parsons,  who  presided,  Holmes  and  Spies.  Parsons  said:  The  president 
of  the  United  States  has  asked  this  people  to  be  thankful.  This  is  so 
good  a  joke  that  Hendricks  couldn't  stand  it,  and  died.  To  whom  should 
they  be  thankful,  and  for  what?  That  all  the  workingmen  in  the  Hock- 
ing Valley  have  not  died  of  hunger?  That  more  workingmen  have  not 
been  murdered  through  the  avarice  of  manufacturers  and  miners?  and 
that  the  three  hundred  new  policemen  of  Chicago  have  not  killed  all 
our  citizens?  The  speaker  showed  that  machinery  more  and  more  de- 
prives workingmen  of  employment;  that  everything  points  to  the  coming 
revolution;  that  the  capitalist  sees  this  and  prepares  for  it,  evidenced  by 
the  milita  drilling  on  the  lake  shore  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  down  the 
rebellious  people.  Workingmen  must  also  prepare;  must  arm  them- 
selves with  all  means  of  warfare. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  So.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  December  28th, 
1885,  second  page,  editorial. 

Chicago  at  last  has  its  dynamite  sensation.  A  little  can  found  on  the 
door  of  Lambert  Tree's  palace.  Evidently  the  dynamiter  proposed  to 
explode  into  the  moon  this  stone  palace  with  a  quarter  of  a  pound  of 
dynamite.  It  is  a  clumsy  humbug.  The  half-burnt  fuse  proves  this, 
for  a  fuse  lighted  in  a  dry  night  never  goes  out  of  itself.  Clearly,  the 
can  was  put  there  by  the  Pinkertons — a  business  trick  to  secure  the 
employment  of  their  force  of  guards.  We  caution  capitalists  that  a  true 
dynamiter  don't  joke  in  such  matters. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  81.  From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  December  29,  1885, 

fourth  page. 

Report  of  meeting  of  north-side  group  at  58  Clybourn  avenue.  A 
resolution  was  adopted  that  the  group  pledges  itself  to  work  for  the 
eight-hour  day,  beginning  May  1st,  but  cautions  the  workingmen  not  to 
meet  the  enemy  unarmed.  It  urges  workingmen  to  eliminate  from  their 
meetings  demagogues  and  slanderers. 


(:88) 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  82.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  December  29111, 

1885,  repeated  in   the   numbers  issued   during   December,  1885,  and 
January,  February  and  March,  1886. 

Workingmen  willing  to  drill  every  Sunday  invited  to  attend  at  58 
Clybourn  avenue. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  83.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  December  31, 

1885,  fourth  page. 

Report  of  meeting  of  north  side  group  in  L/ouff's  Hall,  519  .Larrabee 
street,  on  the  eight-hour  question.  Schwab  said  :  It  is  only  four  months 
until  the  ist  of  May.  Little  has  been  said  to  insure  the  success  of  the 
eight-hour  movement.  "  The  workingmen  should  arm  before  the  ist 
day  of  May  to  meet  Pinkerton's  scoundrels,  the  police  and  the  militia." 
The  lessons  of  the  past  should  serve  as  a  warning.  Anarchists  armed 
themselves  because  they  are  workingmen,  and  they  preach  arming  that 
the  workingmen  may  be  able  to  liberate  themselves. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  84.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  January  6,  1886, 

editorial. 

"  A  new  militia  law."  After  the  adoption  of  the  militia  law  the  Lehr 
und  Wehr  Verein  gradually  disappeared.  The  lesson  of  1877  has  been 
forgotten.  It  ceased  to  pay  to  be  a  socialist  and  the  party  dwindled,  but 
what  was  left  was  effective.  Where,  six  years  ago,  a  thousand  men 
were  armed  with  muskets,  to-day  we  have  a  power  which  cannot  be 
fought  by  law  or  force — an  invisible  network  of  righting  groups. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  85.     From   the   Arbeiter  Zeitung  January  22,  1884, 
fourth  page;  from  a  letter  signed  R.  B.,  dated  January  21,  1866. 

The  writer  states  that  he  is  not  a  member  of  any  organization  or 
association;  that  the  eight-hour  question  should  not  be  the  end  of  the 
present  organization;  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer  it  is  impossible  to 
enforce  the  eight-hour  day  otherwise  than  with  armed  force.  That  only 
if  prepared  to  meet  the  militia  with  dynamite  and  bombs,  can  they 
expect  success  of  the  eight-hour  movement.  And  closes  :  "  Therefore, 
workingmen,  I  call  upon  you,  arm  yourselves." 

PEOPLE'S   EXHIBIT   86.     From   the    Arbeiter    Zeitung  of  February    15, 

1886,  fourth   page,  letter   signed    August   Kiesling,   about  the  eight- 
hour  movement. 

The  writer  states  that  the  workingmen  feel  that  something  must  be 


done.  That  a  great  mass  is  without  means  of  subsistence,  and  growing 
poorer  and  poorer.  And  calls  upon  his  associates  in  misery  not  to  treat 
peaceably  with  their  deadly  enemies  on  the  ist  of  May.  That  the  capi- 
talists will  have  the  working  people's  skulls  crushed.  And  concludes  : 
"  Therefore,  comrades,  arm  to  the  teeth.  We  want  to  demand  our 
rights  on  the  ist  of  May;  in  the  other  case  there  are  only  blows  of  the 
club  for  you." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT   87.     From  the  Arbeiler   Zeitung  of  February   15, 

1886,  fourth  page. 

Report  of  a  mass  meeting  in  the  i2th  street  Turner  Hall  in  regard  to 
the  London  riots;  Oscar  Neebe  presiding;  Fielden  and  Schwab 
speaking. 

Fielden  said,  in  substance,  that  in  former  times  the  rich  were  accustomed 
in  London  to  visit  the  proletarian  quarters  and  sneer  at  the  poverty  and 
filth  about  them;  but  last  week  the  proletarian  visited  the  rich  quarter 
and  showed  his  invincible  power.  That  the  rioters  showed  their  unwis- 
dom by  appealing  to  the  government,  which  cannot  and  will  not  do  any- 
thing for  the  poor.  That  the  'people  must  rely  upon  their  own  power, 
and  the  lesson  of  the  hour  is  that  the  poor  should  arm  themselves. 

Schwab  said,  in  substance,  after  comparing  the  workingmen  in  Lon- 
don and  America,  and  describing  the  socialistic  movement  in  England: 
"  We  greet  the  London  events  as  the  announcement  of  the  near  approach 
of  the  social  revolution." 

Resolutions  were  adopted  declaring  the  meeting  in  harmony  with  the 
rioters  of  England,  and  calling  upon  the  workingmen  to  rally  around  the 
red  flag  of  revolution. 


PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT   88.     From   the   Arbeiter    Zeitung,  February 

Editorial  on  second  page. 

In  France,  during  strikes,  etc.,  a  new  method  is  lately  adopted.  The 
workingmen  barricade  themselves  in  the  factories  with  provisions,  taking 
possession  of  the  property  which  the  manufacturers  desire  to  preserve, 
and  will  only  resort  to  force  for  their  ejection  in  the  most  extreme  case. 
The  conflict  between  capitalism  and  workingmen  is  growing  constantly 
sharper,  and  the  indication  is  that  force  will  bring  about  decisive  results 
in  the  battle  for  liberty. 


(ipo) 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  89.   From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  April  2Oth.   Editorial, 

second  page. 

Unless  the  people  in  the  kitchen  of  life  are  satisfied  with  the  smell  of 
the  roast,  so  long  is  the  glutton  for  liberty.  Does  not  the  coal-miner 
come  voluntarily  to  the  coal  baron  for  employment,  and  are  they  not 
content  with  wages  from  three  to  four  dollars  per  week?  Don't  the  idle 
workingmen  wear  out  their  shoes  to  obtain  employment  at  small  wages? 
Yes,  and  the  laborer  often  buvs  from  the  stores  of  his  extortioners,  in  spite 
of  prohibition  of  the  law.  What  law  ordains  that  the  head  of  a  family 
shall  send  his  wife  and  children  into  the  factory  to  labor?  Is  this  liberty? 
And  yet  they  say  the  working  people  are  free  as  the  bird  in  the  air.  If 
the  workingman  proposes  to  disturb  this  liberty,  militia,  police,  deputy 
sheriffs  and  United  States  troops  are  put  in  motion.  Sneered  at 
and  despised,  the  workingman  will  be  as  long  as.  he  omits  to  arm. 
.  Every  trade  union  should  make  it  obligatory  upon  every  member  to  keep 
a  good  gun  and  ammunition  at  home.  The  demand  of  the  capitalistic 
classes  are  by  muskets  and  galling  guns.  The  workingman  should  follow 
their  example. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  90.  From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  April  21,  editorial 

second  page. 

He  who  submits  to  the  present  order  of  things  has  no  right  to  com- 
plain about  capitalistic  extortion,  for  order  means  sustaining  that.  He 
who  rebels  is  a  rebel,  and  a  rebel  who  puts  himself  opposite  the  cannon's 
mouth  with  empty  fist  is  a  fool. 

PEOPLE'S    EXHIBIT     91.       From     the     Arbeiter    Zeitung,     April    22d. 

editorial  notice,  first  page. 

Refers  to  the  New  York  street  car  strikes  and  the  strikes  in  the 
Brooklyn  sugar  refineries.  Also  to  the  rumor  that  the  strikers  intend 
to  burn  the  house  of  the  street  car  superintendent,  stating  that  this  is 
characteristic  of  the  feeling  of  the  working  circles.  "  The  month  of 
May  may  bring  many  a  thing  about  which  nobody  dreams  of  to-day." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  92.     From   the  Arbeiter    Zeitung    of  April  26th. 
From   a  report  of   a  mass    meeting  on  the  lake  shore. 

Speakers,  Parsons,  Schwab,  Randa  and  Spies.  Schwab  said: 
"  This  is  Easter;  our  forefathers  celebrated  on  this  day  the 
resurrection  of  nature.  To-day  the  workingmen  celebrate  their 


('9') 

resurrection  from  laziness  and  indifference.  From  May  ist,  we  will 
work  eight  hours  a  day.  No  force  is  able  to  withstand  the  power  of 
labor.  Let  us  be  united,  and  we  will  succeed.  Everywhere  police  are 
murderers.  Arm  yourselves.  After  the  ist  of  May  eight  hours  and 
not  a  minute  more. 

Spies  said,  after  speaking  of  the  struggle  between  the  workingmen 
and  the  capitalists,  in  effect:  Be  men  now.  Break  down  the  doors  of 
your  extortioners  instead  of  timidly  knocking  on  them.  Conquer  the 
lost  manhood.  "  Onward"  is  the  motto  in  the  march  of  triumph  until 
the  last  stone  of  the  labor  bastile  is  removed  and  enslaved  humanity 
is  free. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT    93.     From     the   Arbeiter   Zeitung     of   April   3Oth 
editorial  notice,  first  page. 

We  are  advised  that  the  police  are  ordered  to  be  ready  for  a  conflict 
upon  Saturday  of  next  week.  The  capitalists  are  thirsting  for  the  blood 
of  workingmen.  The  workingmen  refuse  to  be  tortured  and  treated 
like  dogs  any  more,  and  for  this  opposition,  the  capitalists  cry  for  blood. 
Perhaps  they  may  have  it,  and  lose  some  of  their  own.  To  the  work- 
ingmen we  again  say:  "  Arm  yourselves,  but  conceal  your  arms  unless 
they  be  stolen  from  you." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  94.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,   May    ist,  first 

page,  editorial. 

Away  with  all  rolls  of  membership  and  minute  books.  Clean  your 
guns;  complete  your  ammunition.  The  police  and  militia  are  ready  to 
murder.  No  workingman  should  leave  his  house  with  empty  pockets. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  95.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  March  15,  1886. 

Letter  box;  a  concussion  primer  is  necessary  to  explode  a  dynamite 
cartridge. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  96.     From    the   Arbeiter   Zeitung,  March  19,  1886, 

fourth  page. 

A  correspondent  writes  that  the  oppressed  prepare  to  demand  the 
eight-hour  day  is  a  good  sign,  but  the  eight-hour  day  is  not  relief  enough 
in  view  of  the  increase  in  the  power  of  producction  and  the  surplus  on 
hand.  The  present  industrial  system  ruins  the  middle  class.  The  only 
business  which  flourishes  is  that  of  the  capitalist.  The  only  aim  of  the 


(I92) 

workingman  should  be  the  liberation  of  mankind  from  the  shackles  of 
wage  slavery.  Here  in  America,  where  the  workingman  possesses  the 
freedom  of  meeting,  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  the  most  should  be  done 
for  the  emancipation  of  mankind,  but  the  tendency  in  the  press  and  with 
the  teachings  of  to-day  is  to  degrade  mankind,  and  if  we  do  not  soon 
bestir  ourselves  for  a  bloody  revolution  we  cannot  leave  anything  to  our 
children  but  poverty  and  slavery.  Therefore,  prepare  in  all  quietness 
for  the  revolution. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  97.     From   the   Arbeiter  Zeitung,  March  24,   1886, 

first  page,  editorial. 

The  capitalists  are  apprehensive  of  a  concerted  movement  of  the  K.  of 
L.  in  connection  with  the  Gould-South-western  fight.  To  the  organized 
laborers  we  call,  "  Keep  your  powder  dry." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  98.     From   the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Friday,  January 
2,  1884,  editorial,  second  page. 

Behind  us  the  past;  before  us  the  new  year.  Backward  our  glance 
sweeps  over  endless  shores  of  human  misery.  The  column  points  to  idle 
factories  and  mines,  the  cold  huts  of  starving  laborers,  with  freezing 
women  and  children.  We  see  also  the  incendiarism  of  the  business 
man  who  burns  his  building  to  get  his  insurance,  a  smart 
business  trick,  and  because  he  succeeds  he  is  respected.  We 
look  on  another  picture  and  see  a  poor  man  who  shot  his  em- 
ployer because  that  employer  desired  to  cheat  him  of  his  earnings. 
Nothing  can  save  him  from  punishment.  He  who  sheds  blood,  his  blood 
shall  be  shed.  Again,  we  see  another  picture:  In  the  temple  presided 
over  by  the  Goddess  of  Justice  a  man  being  tried  who  killed  an  employe 
because  he  demanded  his  wages,  but  this  time  justice  reaches  out  her 
hands  and  says,  "  He  who  kills  his  servant  is  no  criminal.  Thou  art  free." 
Indignation  wakes  in  us,  and  the  world  playing  around  us  becomes  a 
horror. 

Deep  in  the  background  appears  a  group  of  men  whose  faces  express 
courage  and  power  of  action.  They  unfurl  the  red  flag,  and  the  motto 
shows  "  Death  to  tyrants,"  "  Death  to  deception  and  lies."  Our  con- 
fidence in  humanity  returns,  for  we  see  from  the  faces  of  these  men  that 
they  not  only  have  the  will,  but  the  power  to  act  and  to  free 
the  race  from  the  marsh  of  rottenness  and  the  chains  of  despotism. 
They  dig  a  mine  here  and  there,  are  arrested  by  the  minions  of  order 


(^93) 

and  hurried  to  execution  where  they  joyfully  sacrifice  their  life  blood 
with  a  malediction  upon  their  executioners  and  a  prophecy  that  the 
avengers  will  arise. 

We  turn  our  backs  upon  the  past  and  look  to  the  future.  All  is  misty 
before  us  and  indistinct.  We  discover  in  the  picture  presented  that  the 
prediction  is  fulfilled,  that  the  avenger  has  risen. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  99.     From   the   Arbeiter    Zeitung    of  January  4th, 

eighth  page. 

Nitro-glycerine.  The  article  says  that  a  letter  signed  K.,  requesting 
simple  directions  as  to  the  manufacture  of  nitro-glycerine,  had  been  re- 
ceived. The  editorial  answer  proceeds:  The  most  simple  method  is  as 
follows:  Take  one  part  nitric  acid  (1.52  specific  weight)  and  two  parts 
strongest  sulphuric  acid  (1.83  specific  weight).  Make  this  mixture 
in  a  cooler  surrounded  by  ice,  and,  when  well  cooled,  add  fifteen  and  a 
half  grains  of  pure  glycerine,  pouring  as  quickly  as  possible  into  a  larger 
quantity  of  cold  water.  Nitro-glycerine  is  then  precipitated  to  the 
bottom,  from  which  the  fluid  is  poured  off  and  the  nitro-glycerine  is 
carefully  washed  in  fresh  water  several  times,  and  then  with  a  weak 
solution  of  soda.  A  layman  ought  not  to  venture  the  experiment,  but 
only  an  experienced  man. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  100.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  January  5th,  1885. 

Under  the  head  of  socialistic  meeting,  the  paper  quotes  comrade 
Spies  to  have  said  at  52  West  Lake  street,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  4th: 
"  When  we  resort  to  murder  we  only  follow  the  law  of  necessity  and  the 
force  of  self-preservation.  We  murder  to  put  an  end  to  general  murder. 
We  put  murderers  out  of  the  way." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  101.    From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  January   18,  1885. 

Notice  signed  "  Committee  "  calling  a  meeting  in  the  interest  of  arm- 
ing for  Saturday,  the  241!!,  at  8  o'clock,  at  Steinmueller's  Hall. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  102,  report  that  at  Mueller's  Hall,  January  i8th, 

Comrade  Schwab  spoke  thus:  Nothing  is  to  be  expected  of  the 
present  political  parties.  If  they  had  meant  their  promises  they  would 
have  fulfilled  them,  and  because  we  know  that  the  working  class  will 
make  no  concessions  we  have  severed  all  connection  with  it  and  prepared 
for  a  revolution  by  force.  Spies  said  that  he  was  accused  by  a  little 
paper  to  have  advised  workingmen  to  commit  criminal  acts.  What  is 


crime?  "  When  the  workingman  was  putting  himself  in  the  possession 
of  the  fruits  of  his  labor  stolen  from  him,  that  was  called  a  crime.  The 
emancipation  of  the  laborer  from  the  ballot  was  impossible;  it  was  serv- 
ing only  as  a  cover  for  capitalistic  tyranny."  He  spoke  of  the  miserable 
condition  of  the  coal  miners  in  the  Hocking  Valley,  and  concluded  by 
advising  his  hearers  to  inform  thevvselves. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  103.  From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  January  24,  1885, 

editorial  notices. 

The  police  claim  that  Funk  was  a  socialist,  and  has  spoken  at  social- 
istic meetings.  This  is  untrue.  A  socialist  he  may  be.  It  is  a  pity  he 
did  not  blow  up  the  Arson  gang. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  104.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  January  29,  1885. 

Announcement:  Group  Jefferson  No.  r,  agitation  meeting,  Saturday, 
January  3ist,  at  600  Milwaukee  avenue,  at  8  P.  M.  Order  of  the  day: 
One,  essay  on  the  theme,  Civilization  and  Murder. 

Second,  free  discussion  of  this  theme  and  other  business.  New 
members  will  be  initiated. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  105.     From^the  Arbeiter   Zeitung,  Thursday,  Feb- 
ruary 1 2th,  editorial. 

The  sardonic  judge  Bailey,  in  a  recent  decision  in  the  case  of  Standard 
against  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  railway,  setting  aside  the 
verdict  of  the  jury,  gave  this  decision:  "It  is  true  it  has  been  proven 
that  the  locomotive  which  caused  the  injury  to  the  plaintiff  was  in  a  dan- 
gerous condition,  but  as  he,  the  plaintiff,  had  also  been  informed  thereof 
and  notwithstanding  continued  that  work,  then  he  alone  has  to  bear  the 
consequences  of  his  risk."  Whether  the  plaintiff  had  knowledge  was  im- 
material. The  road  knew  the  engine  was  in  a  dangerous  condition,  and 
the  employe  had  to  use  it  because  commanded  by  the  management;  but, 
it  is  asked,  could  he  not  have  refused?  Certainly,  but  at  the  same  time 
he  would  have  had  to  look  for  another  master.  This  alternative  was  as 
dangerous  as  the  risk  on  the  engine.  The  choice  was  between  death  by 
starvation  and  cold  on  one  side  and  clanger  from  the  engine  on  the  other. 
The  liberty  of  the  plaintiff  was  to  choose  his  method  of  destruction. 
Perhaps  the  proletarians  will  sometimes  be  courageous  enough  to  accord 
to  the  judge  the  freedom  of  choice  between  a  hemp  necktie  and  a  nitro- 
glycerine pill." 


PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  106.     Editorial,  Arbeiter  Zeitung,   Monday,  Febru- 
ary 23d. 

We  believe  the  present  struggle  will  not  end  without  a  mighty  storm, 
bringing  terror  and  blessing,  destruction  and  freedom.  The  approach- 
ing revolution  promises  to  be  grander  and  more  terrible  than  any  in  his- 
tory— it  will  be  general  and  will  make  itself  felt  everywhere. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  107.     From  the   Arbeiter  Zeitung,   Monday,   March 

2,  1885.     Editorial. 

One  who  uselessly  exposes  himself  unarmed  to  a  vicious  dog  again  and 
again  has  only  himself  to  blame  for  the  consequences.  We  censure 
those  dirty  souls  who  carry  on  the  business  of  quieting  the  working 
classes  under  idle  promises  of  reform  in  the  near  future.  What  has  re- 
cently occurred  in  Philadelphia  could  not  have  occurred  here  without 
the  hanging  of  a  dozen  policemen  on  the  telegraph  poles  and  house  cor- 
nices, and  this  is  due  to  the  revolutionary  propaganda  carried  on  here. 
Let  the  workingmen  in  other  cities  take  a  lesson  from  this  and  supply 
themselves  with  weapons,  dynamite  and  prussic  acid. 

PEOPLE'S    EXHIBIT    108.     From    the    Arbeiter    Zeitung,    Wednesday, 

March  n,  1885. 

Soon  the  people  must  choose,  either  the  police  must  be  and  the  com- 
munity cease,  or  the  community  must  be  and  the  police  cease. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  109.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Monday,    March 
15,  1885,  About  revolutionary  deeds.     An  article  signed  Z. 

The  life  of  humanity  bears  an  analogy  to  a  sea,  usually  clear  and 
even,  but  sometimes  wrought  by  storms  into  fury,  and  then  sinking  into 
peace.  The  daily  occupations  of  men  usually  absorb  most  of  their  time. 
But  when  the  race  approaches  a  time  of  transmission  to  a  higher  civiliza- 
tion, gigantic  forms  rise  above  the  level  of  the  common  daily  life,  and 
the  enthusiasm,  the  storm  of  deeds,  communicates  itself  more  and  more 
mightily  until  the  heart  of  the  whole  world  throbs  with  an  excited  beat. 
We  now  live  in  such  an  epoch.  The  blood  of  noble  champions  has 
flowed,  which,  like  the  dragon  teeth,  will  bring  forth  Spartans.  In  all 
revolutionary  actions  three  epochs  are  to  be  distinguished.  First,  the 
time  for  preparation,  then  the  moment  of  action,  and  finally  the  period 
which  follows  the  deed.  First,  the  revolutionist  should  study  to  save 
combatants,  to  avoid  danger  of  discovery.  It  is  easy  to  be  seen  that  the 


(i96) 

danger  of  discovery  is  increased  by  the  number  of  actors  and  vice  versa. 
Therefore,  in  the  commission  of  a  deed,  a  comrade  not  living  in  the  local- 
ity should  be  chosen  for  the  act.  And,  again,  if  one  comrade  is  able  to 
perform  the  deed  alone,  he  should  call  no  one  to  his  assistance. 

The  forming  of  special  groups  of  action  is  a  necessity.  Especially 
should  publicity  be  avoided  in  a  country  like  America.  In  the  formation 
of  a  group  of  action  the  greatest  care  should  be  exercised  to  select  men 
whose  heads  and  hearts  are  in  the  right  spot.  When  an  action  is  re- 
solved upon,  it  must  be  executed  as  speedily  as  possible,  to  prevent  the 
dangers  of  delay.  In  the  action  one  must  be  upon  the  spot.  When  the 
action  is  completed  the  group  scatters.  If  this  rule  is  acted  upon  the 
danger  of  discovery  is  greatly  reduced.  Because  of  the  neglect  of  these 
precautions,  most  of  the  failures  of  the  past  have  occurred.  The  com- 
plete success  of  an  action  is  the  best  possible  impulse  to  a  new  deed. 
Already  this  small  warfare  has  commenced  at  many  points.  Finally 
will  come  an  early  rising  en  masse. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  no.    From  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung,  Friday,  March 

20,    1885. 

Frank  Bridges,  one  of  our  wise  law-givers,  has  kicked  the  bucket  of 
his  own  accord,  and  therefore  saved  a  shot. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  in.     From  Die  Fackel  of  March  22,  1885. 

Account  of  the  meeting  at  north  side  Turner  Hall,  the  day  previous. 
First  Mr.  Fielden  praised  the  love  of  sacrifice,  the  heroic  courage  of 
those  who  shed  their  blood  upon  the  barricades,  the  altar  of  the  people, 
during  the  commune  of  Paris.  He  denounced  the  present  civilization  as 
a  lie,  and  called  upon  those  present  t^  join  in  the  effort  for  the  overthrow 
of  the  present  system.  He  was  followed  by  Comrade  Holmes.  Both 
speakers  were  applauded. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  112.    From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Monday,  March 

23,  1885.     Editorial. 

We  characterize  as  criminal  the  continued  suggestion  that  the  question 
of  arming  ought  not  to  be  considered,  while  every  day  brings  news  of 
collisions  between  the  murdering  serfs  of  the  bourgeoise  and  the  unarmed 
crowds  of  the  people.  Every  workingman  ought  to  have  armed  long 
ago,  and  ought  to  arm  now.  Daggers  and  revolvers  are  easily  to  be  got- 
ten, hand  grenades  cheaply  procured,  and  explosives  can  be  obtained.  The 
demand  is  that  we  should  not  enter  upon  the  struggle  with  empty  hands. 


(^97) 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  113.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Monday, 
February  22,  1886. 

An  effort  is  made  to  bring  dissension  among  the  locked-out  wage 
slaves  of  McCormick's  by  the  capitalistic  press,  by  attacking  the  anarch- 
ists, who  are  charged  to  have  instigated  the  wage  slaves  to  rise  against 
their  friend  McCormick.  Perhaps  the  trio — Averill,  Butler  and  McCor- 
mick — will  be  taken  to  account  sooner  than  they  anticipate. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  114.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Tuesday,  March 

2,  1886. 

Yesterday  morning  the  order  scoundrels,  with  the  aid  of  their  natural 
allies,  the  professional  cut-throats,  otherwise  called  detectives,  succeeded  in 
taking  some  of  the  scabs  to  the  factory,  and  this  morning  the  number 
was  materially  increased.  This  report  shows  for  what  purpose  the  police 
exist — to  protect  the  workingman  if  he  works  for  starvation  wages  and 
is  obedient,  and  to  club  him  if  he  refuse.  Force  only  gives  way  to  force. 
Who  would  attack  capitalism  in  earnest,  must  be  prepared  to  kill  if  he 
does  not  want  to  be  killed.  "  The  time  up  to  the  ist  of  May  is  short — 
look  out." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  114.     Article  on  nitro-glycerine  in  the  Arbeiter  Zei- 
tung of  March  24,  1885. 

Substantially  the  same  as  the  passage  upon  that  subject  in  Most's 
book. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  115,  from   the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  Tuesday,  March 

26,  1885. 

Notice  of  the  Reinsdorf  pamphlet  recently  published  by  Johann  Most, 
containing  the  biography  of  Reinsdorf  and  letters. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  116,  from  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Wednesday,  April 
8,  1885,  among  the  editorial  notices. 

Something  worth  hearing.  Yesterday  some  Quincy  strikers  fired  on 
their  bosses,  and  not  on  the  scabs. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  117,  from  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Sunday  issue,  April 

12,  1885. 

McCormick  capitulates.  He  surrenders  without  conditions,  and  the 
workingmen  secure  the  acceptation  of  all  their  demands.  The  order  po- 
lice had  no  inclination  to  take  up  the  fight  with  fifteen  hundred  armed 


(i98) 

workingmen,  and  the  strikers  will  return  to  their  work  Monday.  Now, 
that  it  is  over,  we  want  to  say  that  not  only  the  strikers  were  well  armed 
with  revolvers,  but  that  the  stronger  laxatives  were  not  wanting.  And 
now,  let  it  be  understood  that  the  captured  rifles,  revolvers,  etc.,  are  in 
safe  hands,  and  will  be  held  on  the  principle  that  to  the  victors  belong  the 
spoils. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT   118,  from   the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,   Friday  April  24, 

1885. 

The  board  of  trade  gambling  hell  is  proposed  to  be  dedicated  on 
Tuesday  next,  at  8  o'clock.  The  workingmen  propose  to  celebrate  this 
by  a  meeting  on  Market  square,  followed  by  a  serenade  of  the  members 
in  the  hall.  All  the  workingmen  of  the  city  are  invited  to  participate. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  119,  from  the  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Saturday,  April 

25,  1885. 

The  local  commercial  paper  reports  that  Rosenberger's  orchesta  will 
furnish  the  music  at  the  dedication  of  the  new  board  of  trade,  and  E.  A. 
Storrs  will  conduct  the  dedication.  The  rest  will  be  attended  to  by  the 
anarchists. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  120,  from  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Tuesday,  April  28, 

1885. 

Everybody  should  attend  the  board  of  trade  demonstration  to-night. 
PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT   121,   from    the    Arbeiter  Zeitung,    April  2,9  1885. 

From  a  report  of  the  demonstration  on  the  preceding  night,  under  title, 
"Thieves in  League."  The  march  formed,  headed  by  a  company  of  the 
Bohemian  groups,  splendid  looking  fellows;  next,  three  female  comrades 
with  two  red  flags  and  one  black.  Then  the  procession,  which  could 
not  be  kept  in  good  order,  a  matter  much  to  be  regretted.  Behind 
these,  a  strong  company  of  well-armed  comrades  of  various  groups,  in 
which  the  nitro-glycerine  pills  were  not  missing.  They  were  prepared 
for  a  probable  attack,  and  had  a  collision  come  there  would  have  been 
pieces.  The  procession,  which  was  stopped  some  distance  from  the 
brightly-lighted  place,  sang  the  Marseillaise.  About  five  hundred 
policemen  were  stationed  around  the  building,  who  accepted  quietly 
many  derisive  utterances.  The  procession  returned  to  5th  avenue,  where 
Parsons,  Spies  and  Fielden  spoke  from  the  window  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  building. 


(  '99) 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  122.     From  the  Arbeiler  Zeitung,  Tuesday,  May  5, 

1885. 

"  When,  anywhere,  a  small  party  of  workingmen  dare  to  speak  of 
rights  and  privileges,  the  '  Order  '  draws  together  the  murdering  scound- 
rels'from  all  about,  and  the  entire  government  is  ever  ready  to  suppress 
every  petty  demonstration  by  force.  The  workingmen  ought  to  take 
aim  at  every  member  of  the  militia,  and  to  do  with  him  as  one  would  do 
with  some  one  of  whom  it  is  known  that  he  is  after  taking  one's  life. 
It  might  then  sooner  become  difficult  to  obtain  murdering  tools." 
"  Workingmen,  arm  yourselves.  Let  the  butchery  of  La  Monte  be  a 
lesson  to  you." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  123.     From  the  same  issue,  at   the  close  of  an   ed- 
itorial. 

"  Before  you  lies  this  blissful  Eden;  the  road  to  it  lies  through  the 
smoking  ruins  of  the  old  world.  Your  passport  to  it  is  that  banner 
which  calls  to  you  in  flaming  lines  the  word  '  Anarchy.'  ' 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  124.      From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  May  9,  1885. 

Last  night  valuable  fixtures  and  machines  in  the  quarry  of  Singer  & 
Talcott  were  destroyed  bv  fire.  That  is  something.  Singer  was.  the 
instigator  of  the  La  Monte  butchery. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  125.  From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  June  19,  1885. 
Conclusion  of  an  article  headed  "  Contribution  to  the  Question  of 
Arming.  " 

To  attempt  to  meet  the  serfs  of  order  with  empty  hands  is  insane,  and 
one  should  arm  as  soon  as  possible.  Workingmen,  arm  yourselves  with 
the  most  effectual  means.  The  better  you  do  this  and  the  quicker  the 
fight,  the  sooner  the  victory  is  won.  Signed  "  Z." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  126.     Continuation  in  the  issue  of  June  20,  1885,  of 
the  last  mentioned  article,  by  the  same  author. 

Advises  the  formation  of  groups,  who,  by  small  regular  contributions, 
may  accumulate  funds  to  buy  arms.  Suggests  that  dynamite  bears  in 
America  the  name  of  Hercules  and  giant  powder.  He  refers  to  the 
fables  of  Romulus  and  Remus,  and  calls  upon  the  workingmen  to  found 
and  establish  "  the  temple  of  the  noble  Goddess  of  Liberty  upon  the 
whole  face  of  the  globe,"  concluding,  "  But  to  this  end  you  must  be 
wolves,  and  as  such  ye  need  sharp  teeth.  Workingmen,  arm  yourselves." 


(  2OO  ) 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  127.     From  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  June  24,  1885. 
Editorial  headed  "  Delusive  Imaginations,"  closing  as  follows: 

"Fellow-Agitators!  Dark,  threatening  economical  storm  clouds  have 
arisen  in  the  United  States;  they  become  thicker  above  our  heads;  they 
will  discharge  themselves  and  bring  a  flood  of  inexpressible  misery  upon 
us.  A  terrible  crisis  is  coming.  Let  us  close  our  ranks,  and  do  not  let 
us  pierce  our  own  flesh,  but  that  of  capital.  The  time  is  too  serious. 
Let  us  rather  see  in  every  comrade  a  welcome  fellow-confidant.  Let  us 
do  this,  and  then  the  day  of  liberation,  which  will  be  celebrated  here  in 
a  short  time,  and  which  celebration  must  seem  to  us  as  derisive  laughter  of 
hell,  will  soon  be  followed  by  the  true  and  real  day  of  liberation.  That 
is  our  most  earnest  desire." 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  128.     From  the   Alarm,  January  9,  1885. 

A  notice  that  in  the  absence  of  the  editor  and  the  assistant,  their  work 
devolved  upon  August  Spies. 

"  The  right  to  bear  arms." 

After  the  conspiracy  of  the  workingmen,  the  working  classes  in  1877, 
the  breaking  up  of  the  meeting  on  Market  square,  the  brutal  assault 
upon  a  gathering  of  furniture  workers  in  Vorwart's  Turner  Hall,  the 
murder  of  Tessmann,  and  the  general  clubbing  and  shooting  down  of 
peaceably  inclined  wage  workers,  the  proletarians  organized  the  Lehr 
und  Wehr  Verein,  which  in  about  a  year  and  a  half  had  grown  to  a  mem- 
bership of  one  thousand.  This  was  regarded  by  the  capitalists  as  a  men- 
ace, and  they  procured  the  passage  of  the  militia  law,  under  which  it 
became  an  offense  for  any  body  of  men,  other  than  those  authorized  by 
the  governor,  to  assemble  with  arms,  drill  or  parade  the  streets.  The 
members  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  mostly  socialists,  who  believed 
in  the  ballot,  made  up  a  test  case  to  determine  the  constitutionality  of  this 
act,  rejecting  the  counsel  of  the  extremists.  Judge  Barnutn  held  the  law 
to  be  unconstitutional — an  appeal  was  taken — and  the  Supreme  court 
upset  this  decision  and  held  the  law  constitutional.  Thereupon  the 
Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein  applied  to  the  Supreme  court  of  the  United 
Stales,  which  within  a  few  days  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
court  of  the  state.  Do  we  need  to  comment  on  this? 

That  militia  law  has  had  its  uses.  Where  there  was  before  a  military 
body  publicly  organized,  whose  strength  could  be  easily  ascertained,  now 
there  exists  an  organization  whose  members  cannot  be  estimated,-  and  a 


( 201  ) 

network  of  destructive  agencies  of  modern  military  character  that  will 
defy  suppression. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBITS  129  and  130.  Four  photographic  views  of  a  globu- 
lar bomb  shell. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  131.  Two  photographic  views  of  an  inflammable 
bomb. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  132.  Photograph  of  ladel  and  can  referred  to  in 
testimony. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  133.  Two  photographic  views  of  a  galvanized  iron 
construction,  delivered  by  Engel  to  the  police  and  described  by  Inspector 
Bonfield. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  134.  Photographic  view  of  four  supposed  gas  pipe 
bombs. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  135.  Photographic  view  of  four  short  pieces  of  gas 
pipe. 

PEOPLE'S  EXHIBIT  136.     Same. 

DEFENDANT'S  EXHIBIT  i.  Call  for  the  Hay  market  meeting  as  issued, 
omitting  altogether  the  line  "  Workingmen,  arm  yourselves  and  appear  in 
full  force." 

DEFENDANT'S  EXHIBIT  2.  From  the  Alarm  of  June  13,  1885,  "  Victor 
Hugo,  his  memorable  address  to  the  rich  and  poor.  His  most  precious 
legacy  to  humanity.  One  message  to  the  rich,  the  other  to  the  poor. 
The  sum  of  human  wisdom — read  and  reflect." 

DEFENDANT'S  EXHIBIT  2. 

Victor  Hugo's  address  to  the  rich  and  poor,  from  the  Alarm  of 
June  13,  1885. 

Amongst  other  things  in  the  address  the  writer  says:  "  To  the  rich. 
What  is  the  father  of  privilege?  Chance.  What  is  his  son?  Abuse. 
Neither  chance  nor  abuse  is  nature.  They  have  both  of  them  an  evil 
to-morrow.  I  come  to  warn  you.  I  come  to  denounce  to  you  your  own 
bliss.  It  is  made  out  of  the  ills  of  every  one.  Your  paradise  is  made 
out  of  the  hell  of  the  poor.  * 

Abandoned,  an  orphan,  alone  in  boundless  creation,  I  made  this  entry 
into  this  gloom  that  you  call  society.  The  first  thing  I  saw  was  law 
under  the  form  of  a  gibbet.  The  second  was  wealth — it  is  your 
wealth — under  the  form  of  a  woman  dead  of  cold  and  hunger.  The 
third  was  luxury  under  the  shape  of  a  hunted  man  chained  to  prison 


(  202    ) 

walls;  the  fourth  was  your  palaces  beneath  the  shadow  of  which  cowered 
the  tramp.  The  human  race  has  been  made  by  you  slaves  and  convicts. 
You  have  made  of  this  earth  a  dungeon.  Light  is  wanting.  Air  is 
wanting;  virtue  is  wanting. 

"  The  workers  of  this  world  whose  efforts  you  enjoy  live  in  death. 
There  are  little  girls  who  begin  at  eight  by  prostitution  and  who  end  at 
twenty  by  old  age.  Who  among  you  have  been  at  Newcastle-on-Tyne? 
There  are  men  in  the  mines  who  chew  coal  to  fill  the  stomach  and  cheat 
hunger.  Look  you  in  Lancashire,  misery  everywhere.  Are  you  aware 
that  the  Harlem  fishermen  eat  grass  when  the  fishery  fails?  Are  you 
aware  that  at  Burton  La  Zess  there  are  still  certain  lepers  driven  in  the 
woods  who  are  fired  at  if  they  come  out  of  their  dens?  In  Peckridge 
there  are  no  beds  in  the  hovels,  and  holes  are  dug  in  the  ground  for  little 
children  to  sleep  in,  so  that  in  the  place  of  beginning  with  the  cradle  they 
begin  with  the  tomb.  Mercy,  have  mercy  for  the  poor!  Oh,  I  conjure 
you,  have  pity!  But  no,  you  will  not.  I  know  ye  all,  devils  bred  in  hell 
and  dogs  with  hearts  of  stone.  Upward  to  your  golden  thrones  for  ages 
has  gone  the  cry  of  misery,  the  groan  of  hunger  and  the  sob  of  despair, 
and  ye  heeded  it  not.  What  mercy  thou  hast  given  shall  be  meted  out 
to  you  in  turn.  Bear  in  mind  that  the  series  of  kings  armed  with  the 
sword  was  interrupted  by  Cromwell  with  the  ax.  Tremble,  the  incor- 
ruptible dissolutions  draw  near.  The  clipped  talons  push  out  again.  The 
torn-out  tongues  become  tongues  of  flame  scattered  to  the  wings  of 
darkness,  and  they  howl  in  the  infinite.  They  who  are  hungry  show 
their  idle  teeth.  Paradise  is  built  over  hell's  totter.  There  is  suffering. 
There  is  suffering;  and  that  which  is  above  leans  over,  and  that  which  is 
below  gapes  opens.  The^shadow  becomes  light;  the  damned  discuss  the 
elect.  It  is  the  people  who  are  oncoming.  I  tell  you  it  is  man  who 
ascends.  It  is  the  end  that  is  beginning.  It  is  the  red  dawn  of  catastrophe. 

"  Oh,  this  society  is  false.  One  day,  and  soon,  the  true  society  will 
come.  Then  there  will  be  no  more  lords;  there  will  be  free,  living  men. 
There  will  be  no  more  wealth;  there  will  be  abundance  for  the  poor. 
There  will  be  no  more  masters,  but  there  will  be  brothers.  They  that 
toil  shall  have.  This  is  the  future.  No  more  prostration,  no  more  abase- 
ment, no  more  ignorance,  no  more  wealth,  no  more  beasts  of  burden,  no 
more  courtiers,  no  more  kings — but  light." 


(203) 

EXHIBIT  3. 

From  the  Alarm  of  22,  1885.  "  Anarchy  v.  Government." 

"  Anarchy,  from  the  Greek,  meaning  no  government,  is  the  denial  of 
the  right  of  coercion — the  abrogation  of  statute  law,  a  constitution  by 
means  of  which  man  governs  his  fellow  man.  In  behalf  of  government 
it  is  argued  that  man  is  wicked  and  must  be  restrained,  and  therefore  gov- 
ernment is  necessary.  The  free  society  which  anarchy  would  establish 
proceeds  upon  the  theory  that  under  natural  law  men  could  not  but  act 
right,  since  none  would  be  protected  in  wrong-doing. 

"  Under  government  we  see  the  standard  of  right  and  wrong  regulated 
by  enactments.  One  portion  of  society  dictating  to  the  other  and  exact- 
ing service.  Anarchy  teaches  that  law  is  to  be  discovered,  not  manu- 
factured; and  that  conformity  to  natural  law  means  happiness;  disregard 
thereof,  misery.  The  form  of  government  is  material.  Anarchy  denies 
the  right  of  one  man  to  rule  another,  and  to  the  shibboleth,  '  The  great- 
est good  to  the  greatest  number '  answers  '  The  greatest  good  to  all.'' 
Under  anarchy,  arbitration  would  take  the  place  of  courts;  asylums,  of 
prisons;  voluntary  co-operation,  of  wage-slavery.  Exchange  of  equiva- 
lents would  take  the  place  of  the  system  of  competition  and  modern 
commerce.  The  workshops  would  belong  to  the  workers,  the  tools  to 
the  toilers,  the  product  to  the  producers,  while  the  means  of  existence 
would  become  the  heritage  of  the  race.  Occupation  and  use  would  be 
the  sole  title.  But  under  government  natural  law  is  set  aside  by 
statutory  enactment.  Natural  law  is  self-enforcing — statutory  law  re- 
quires the  paraphernalia  of  courts,  jail,  police  and  armies  to  its  enforce- 
ment." Signed  «  P." 

DEFENDANTS'  EXHIBIT  4. 
From  the  Alarm  of  June  2,  18857. 

John  Stuart  Mill  says:  "  If,  therefore,  the  choice  were  to  be  made  between 
communism,  with  all  its  chances,  and  the  present  state  of  society,  with  all 
its  sufferings  and  injustice:  if  the  institution  of  private  property  necessarily 
carries  with  it  as  a  consequence  that  the  produce  of  labor  should  be  ap- 
portioned, as  we  now  see  it,  almost  in  an  inversed  ratio  to  the  labor — 
the  largest  portion  to  those  whose  work  is  almost  nominal,  and  so  on,  in 
a  descending  scale,  the  remuneration  dwindling  as  the  work  grows  harder 
and  more  disagreeable,  until  the  most  fatiguing  and  exhausting  bodily 


(204) 

labor  cannot  count  with  certainty  on  being  able  to  earn  the  necessaries 
of  life;  if  this  or  communism  were  the  alternative,  all  the  difficulties, 
great  or  small,  of  communism  would  be  as  dust  in  the  balance." 

DEFENDANTS'  EXHIBIT  5. 
From  the  Alarm  of  September  5,  1885.     Title,  Forcible  Gospel. 

At  a  meeting  held  by  the  Sociological  society  of  New  York,  re- 
cently, the  Rev.  Dr.  Rylance  spoke,  and  among  other  things  said: 
"  Patronizing  talk  was  of  no  use  as  a  remedy  for  existing  evils.  Work- 
ingmen  were  not  to  be  won  over  by  mere  potent  eloquence.  It  was  no 
use  telling  a  man  that  if  he  was  industrious  and  saved  his  money  he  might 
become  a  capitalist  himself,  when,  in  many  cases,  the  amount  he  received 
as  wages  was  barely  sufficient  for  a  mere  existence.  The  tyranny  of 
capital  was  fast  becoming  as  bad  as  European  despotism.  He  contrasted 
the  squalid  tenements  and  crowded  neighborhoods  in  which  the  working 
people  were  huddled  together  with  the  stately  residences  of  those  who 
lived  in  luxury  from  the  results  of  labor,  and  maintained  that  poverty  was 
not  the  result  of  ignorance,  and  that  wealth  was  the  result  of  the  co- 
operation of  labor  and  capital.  The  present  condition  of  capital  was 
founded  on  force  and  not  on  knowledge." 


03 

si 

$3 


03  ^ 

r  TJ 

o  ' 

-**  » 

M  > 

§  z  n 

I  »  « 


I  N 

*  M 

TJ  O3 

E  i"1 


R 


f! 


IP 

s 

S3 

3 


09 
P 


O 

s 

p- 


n> 
o 

•o_ 

fD 
O 


rr 

CD 


6J 

f? 
o 


!•  9 


E 
(A 


C/3    |    E 


re 


z 

s    & 


«  ° 

O  r^ 

i  i  a 

o         O 


3       2 
o 


p 

S 


KF 

aa 

£5" 


v/,/ 


